PDA

View Full Version : How do you like your magic?



Ozymandias9
2010-04-22, 01:43 AM
How do you like your magic in a fantasy setting? Just a random question that struck my fancy.

Do you prefer magic to be functional or capricious? Emotive, quasi-scientific, or invocational? Common? Rare? Ubiquitous but hard to access?

Are there any particular examples from fiction resonated with you and/or helped to create this preference?

How, if at all, does this affect how you look at magic in RPGs?



Personally, I prefer my magic functional and quasi-scientific.

Doc Roc
2010-04-22, 01:47 AM
Scientific, or rather, hermetic.
Limited, finite, quantifiable within the world, and generally lacking huge explanations outside of it.

Pluto
2010-04-22, 01:54 AM
I like it rare, ritualistic, cinematic, powerful and hopelessly faulty.

This probably came from old ghost and adventure comic books where the Evil Priests would spend two issues preparing their Giant Evil Ritual, only to end up being devoured by the Giant Monster From Beyond Time so the Intrepid Hero didn't have to have person-blood on his conscience.

BobVosh
2010-04-22, 01:55 AM
In an RPG: functional, Ubiquitous but hard to access, quasi-scientific

In anything unconcerned with gaming: capricious and common. Emotive or invocational.

Totally Guy
2010-04-22, 02:08 AM
Costly. To me the price of magic is more interesting than the spells themselves. It builds conflict into the situation. "Should I use my magic to solve the problem but at the cost of my own wants and desires?"

Starscream
2010-04-22, 02:19 AM
I tend to use it as fairly rare and beyond the abilities of most people to access. Look at the cost of even having a level one spell cast for you, and then calculate what the average commoner makes in a year. There's a reason the prices are so high; it's difficult and dangerous stuff.

And only truly exceptional people can wield it effectively. Intelligence based casters can do it because they study for their entire lives, sacrificing all else in the pursuit of their knowledge. They are geniuses, and understand the workings of reality far better than most of us can ever hope to achieve.

Wisdom based casters are the conduits through which much higher beings and concepts work their will, and failure to serve the cause of these beings results in them losing their abilities. Their wisdom moves them beyond the mere needy scared animals most of us are, and closer to universal oneness.

As for charisma based casters...well, the universe is basically too afraid to say "no" to them. Think Haruhi Suzumiya. Some people can just plain intimidate the laws of physics into sitting down and shutting up.

BobVosh
2010-04-22, 02:22 AM
In an RPG: functional, Ubiquitous but hard to access, quasi-scientific

In anything unconcerned with gaming: capricious and common. Emotive or invocational.

To supplement this: I really like deadlands use of magic. I don't remember the edition, but its the one with exploding dice and cards.

Frosty
2010-04-22, 02:28 AM
Intelligence based casters can do it because they study for their entire lives, sacrificing all else in the pursuit of their knowledge. They are geniuses, and understand the workings of reality far better than most of us can ever hope to achieve.
Genius they may be, but sacrificing all else means no time practicing talking to girls.

This is probably why so often wizards learn Planar Binding and summon Succubi...

Starscream
2010-04-22, 03:30 AM
Genius they may be, but sacrificing all else means no time practicing talking to girls.

Charisma is often a wizard's dump stat, so I imagine that time isn't the only reason they aren't very successful with the opposite sex.

Deca
2010-04-22, 03:31 AM
Well it depends on what type of magic really. I consider Wizard magic to be functional and semi-scientific, with massive books written about it, filled with theorems and the likes.
But spontaneous magic (ie Sorceror or Bard), I consider to be a different force entirely. While it gets similiar results to Wizard magic, it's more chaotic and harder to control.

Gametime
2010-04-22, 05:25 AM
I like my magic like I like my women: hot, strong, and with a spoon in it.

I really love the idea of magic being very powerful but very dangerous. A game where magic is restricted pretty much entirely to NPCs appeals to me; not for every game, just for my own ideal fantasy setting. I want the wizards in my world to be extremely powerful, and to require enormous effort on the parts of the heroes to overcome.

I also lean towards magic taking a long time to perform, though. A wizard should be powerful because he's prepared, not because he can rewrite reality in under six seconds.

Fallbot
2010-04-22, 05:27 AM
Strange and capricious, with a price that's always too high.

This approach rarely seems to work well in games though.

GolemsVoice
2010-04-22, 05:47 AM
If it's a game where the PCs hav eaccess to it, I like my magic powerful, easy to do, but hard to learn HOW to do, but mysterios, with plenty of magical places and fatnastic cities etc. Think Warcraft or common D&D. As a player, if I make the decision to be a caster, I want to be able to actually BE a caster, and not some guy who has to fear fro his life everytime he tries to produce a magical arrow that is slightly stronger than a normal arrow, and I don't want to be able to only cast under perfect conditions, after a full rest, when I've done everything I can do to make things go my way. Why even bother to inculde a full caster as a character "class" (even if there may be no set "classes")?

That, of course, only applies when the setting fits. If I play a mortal in WoD, I EXPECT amgic to be dangerous, but then again, I don't expect to play a mortals game as a caster. If I play CoC, I expect amgic to mess me up, because that's what CoC is all about. But in these cases, the PCs are never supposed to use magic as their defining feature, so that's ok.


If it's a book or any other thing where I don't have to participate, I'm fine with almost any form of magic, but generally, I like it a bit more powerful, though it doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not.

Totally Guy
2010-04-22, 06:25 AM
There are a few ways to incorporate a cost to a magic system.

1: Have a "Spellcaster" feat/trait/advantage that has to be taken in order for a character to cast spells.
2: Have a health/constitution/fortitude type of check be made to stave off a condition. (I'm the system I'm using our wizard can cast as often as he likes, any spell, but if he fails these he suffers from a loss of fortitude meaning he'll be less likely to succeed on future attempts.)
3: Have a potential interesting failure condition like a random effect or an unwanted summoning.
4: Have a WoD style morality track that fills up as you cast the most powerful things. When it fills up the character explodes/ascends/kills self/gets on a ship to the west. He has a tense destiny to avoid.

Yukitsu
2010-04-22, 06:26 AM
Any internally consistent system is fine by me, be it scientific, scarce, costly, or mystical, common or cheap.

PaladinBoy
2010-04-22, 06:37 AM
I prefer functional magic systems where magic is uncommon, but not incredibly rare. I like the idea of magic being well known, almost scientific, within certain limits, yet still mysterious and capable of creating unusual and unpredictable effects in extraordinary situations.

Probably, by now, I'd say various types of anime magic have most influenced my view. I just like the idea of having a reliable way to use massive energy weapons, I guess.

Vangor
2010-04-22, 08:22 AM
By far my greatest preference are for worlds where magic is highly limited but is obvious enough. This means you may possess certain powers, but myths and legends are still superstitious and often inaccurate. An old temple may be said to be haunted but could merely be the wind or the odd shadows of the crumbling structure. Another time you hear of an ancient tomb holding a man said to be a wizard, and you come across his vengeful, spellflinging spirit. But you rarely encounter others with magic, and your own is limited to an extent the usual highwaymen, soldiery, etc., can pose a problem for you.

I suppose I enjoy being able to fling a fireball and have people burned to ash rather than hurt a tad and have an actual want for about any item I come across.

Optimystik
2010-04-22, 08:25 AM
Psionic. Points instead of slots, no poop, no breakdancing, no gibberish.

When I do use magic though, I still prefer points.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-04-22, 08:30 AM
Low like lord of the rings.


which is odd cuz i Like realms and that is definetly high magic...most of my homebrew worlds are low like LOTR.

Erom
2010-04-22, 09:00 AM
Scientifically grounded (including some sort of realistic cost), nearly - Tippyversal in it's power and ubiquitous-ness, and fused with technology wherever possible.

I liked Eberron but you could tell they didn't ask any scientists or engineers what they would do with harnessed elementals - it had too much straight duplication of technology with magic, and less exploration of the really cool things you could do when you fuse the two.

Roderick_BR
2010-04-22, 09:29 AM
If it's a game where the PCs hav eaccess to it, I like my magic powerful, easy to do, but hard to learn HOW to do, but mysterios, with plenty of magical places and fatnastic cities etc. Think Warcraft or common D&D. As a player, if I make the decision to be a caster, I want to be able to actually BE a caster, and not some guy who has to fear fro his life everytime he tries to produce a magical arrow that is slightly stronger than a normal arrow, and I don't want to be able to only cast under perfect conditions, after a full rest, when I've done everything I can do to make things go my way. Why even bother to inculde a full caster as a character "class" (even if there may be no set "classes")?

That, of course, only applies when the setting fits. If I play a mortal in WoD, I EXPECT amgic to be dangerous, but then again, I don't expect to play a mortals game as a caster. If I play CoC, I expect amgic to mess me up, because that's what CoC is all about. But in these cases, the PCs are never supposed to use magic as their defining feature, so that's ok.


If it's a book or any other thing where I don't have to participate, I'm fine with almost any form of magic, but generally, I like it a bit more powerful, though it doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not.

The problem with D&D, is that it's not like you described here. Magic is awfuly easy to learn (same effort that a fighter learns how to swing a sword harder, you can learn any spell as long as you can find a scroll), awfully easy to use (5ft step with thousands of default/swift action spells, quickening, spells that last for hours/days), and you can reshape the very fabric of reality in a few seconds without fear, hesitation, or even blinking, let alone cast a magic arrow without worry
AD&D had some spells that were powerful, but had a high cost, while you could use many other lesser spells without fear.

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 09:49 AM
Genius they may be, but sacrificing all else means no time practicing talking to girls.

This is probably why so often wizards learn Planar Binding and summon Succubi...

There's always Charm Person...

What? That just make them friendly.

Morty
2010-04-22, 09:57 AM
I prefer the Discworld's approach to magic, in that it's useful, but wizards should think twice before using it for trivial purposes - and I like the sort of flavor found there too. Of course, in an actual game it has to be somewhat different - less powerful and more functional, so that a spellcasting character actually uses magic every once in a while but doesn't break the game in half while doing so. But the general idea stays the same.

jseah
2010-04-22, 10:03 AM
As I have mentioned in another similar thread,

I like my magic like a science. I find there are too many waffles in any system of magic, even one as rigid as D&D.
Magic does not need to follow scientific laws as we understand it today. But it most certainly follows rules. And I want to know those rules. Even the 'at the speed of plot' magic follows rules, just a metagame one. No exceptions, I still wish to know those rules. (what is a good plot?)

Air is opposed to Earth. Please define Air magic, Earth magic and 'opposed'. Explain the effect of this oppostion and detail how they affect the various applications of magic.

If you say, Air magic spells have 2x effect on Earth aligned targets, I ask, what is an Earth aligned target?
What do you mean by 2x effect? Does a thrown rock hit twice as hard? (or god forbid, you can throw a rock twice as far at an Earth aligned target)
How would a magical mist interact with this 2x effect? (when there is no clear way to double the effect)

Definitions, explanations and characterization. I actively ask for the magic system to be charted out.
I understand that not all games jot down everything about magic. In which case, I almost always end up playing a character who's main aim is to do this.

GolemsVoice
2010-04-22, 10:47 AM
AD&D had some spells that were powerful, but had a high cost, while you could use many other lesser spells without fear.

That's actually what I was thinking of. "Everyday" magic that can be performed reliably and without fear of it all going horribly wrong just because you mispronounced the spell that produces campfires, but high costs for things that have powerful results.

High cost in this case doesn't have to always be a high risk, or some part of the character's power, it can also be a complicated ritual requiring lots of time, research, helpers and rare objects, etc.

subject42
2010-04-22, 12:40 PM
I like my magic like a science. I find there are too many waffles in any system of magic, even one as rigid as D&D.
Magic does not need to follow scientific laws as we understand it today. But it most certainly follows rules. And I want to know those rules. Even the 'at the speed of plot' magic follows rules, just a metagame one. No exceptions, I still wish to know those rules.

While I don't disagree that magic should have a degree of internal consistency, I like it when the complexity of the governing ruleset is complex enough that it looks like utter chaos and "magic" to the inexperienced user.



"WHY IS MY HEAD ON FIRE?"

"What were you trying to do?

"I was trying to move that coin across the table."

"Did you clear your mind?"

"Yes"

"Wash your hands?"

"Coat the floor with salt and sandlewood?"

"Yes"

"Recite the fourth incantation of Marashu Albari?"

"Of course!"

"Show the Voorish sign?"

"Yes"

"Did you recently feed your neighbor's goldfish?"

"Yes, but what does that have to do with any--"

"Well there's your problem"

"..."

Weezer
2010-04-22, 12:51 PM
I like name-magic ala Wizard of Earthsea and The Name of the Wind. That type of magic seems to me to combine the best aspects of both scientific and mystical magic types.

gdiddy
2010-04-22, 12:54 PM
Magic should have a price. A horrible horrible price. I use a slightly more magic friendly universe than George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones in my Heir of Karmark game. In my setting, I deemed that all spells do their level in con damage to the caster. Arcane magic quires a Con save or fatigues the caster. Racial Spell Like Abilities, the Warlock, and the Binder are immune. These effects are not mitigated or healed by anything other than rest. Two or more casters with the same spell on their list and the Ritualist feat may reduce the chance for Con damage, but it still uses the spell from all ritualists.

Evil characters can at higher levels use npcs or pcs with the Vessel template (randomly selected 1-in-1,000 people) to take the con damage for them. Drow have elaborate steam punk machines that extract Con damage of torture victims and distill it into a potion for their priestesses.

Magic Weapons are all 100x normal price, because it probably cost a person's life to make it.

Magic isn't rare, but few people are mad enough to subject themselves to an early death and lifetime of self-inflicted illness. Those that do get Time Stop. The people who do become magic users are hardy abled-body people. They sacrifice their health and well-being for success and power. Like an athlete who takes steroids or a med student who constantly takes Provigil and Alzheimer's medication, Karmark has plenty of mages. By far, of the 12 active players, the most common class is Bard.

There are trade offs for this, mostly that all wizard spells are significantly more powerful in their own tower. They're also politically important. There are three powers in most countries: The king, The Temple, and The Collegium.

I've played in high magic settings, but only with a select group of friends, all of who are authors as well as gamers. For instance, one player decided for themselves that overland flight required a saddle as a material component. Their fly speed was only if they stayed on the saddle. This quickly became the norm for most wizards in that world.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-22, 01:03 PM
Magic should have a price. A horrible horrible price. I use a slightly more magic friendly universe than George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones in my Heir of Karmark game. In my setting, I deemed that all spells do their level in con damage to the caster. Arcane magic quires a Con save or fatigues the caster. Racial Spell Like Abilities, the Warlock, and the Binder are immune. These effects are not mitigated or healed by anything other than rest. Two or more casters with the same spell on their list and the Ritualist feat may reduce the chance for Con damage, but it still uses the spell from all ritualists.

Wait, monsters gets a free rein to use magic spell-likes?

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-22, 01:12 PM
No wonder there are so many liches running around.

~LuckyBoneDice~
2010-04-22, 01:14 PM
I have magic, in most campaigns, as Omnipresent, but complex to use.

gdiddy
2010-04-22, 01:22 PM
Wait, monsters gets a free rein to use magic spell-likes?

"Adventurer" is not a profession. It's an epitaph. Luckily, monsters are not running around everywhere. They are discreet, insular, and hide far away from civilization.

Except for Dragons, who comprise a sizable portion of most nation's nobility and magi collegiums.

jseah
2010-04-22, 01:54 PM
While I don't disagree that magic should have a degree of internal consistency, I like it when the complexity of the governing ruleset is complex enough that it looks like utter chaos and "magic" to the inexperienced user.
XD I'm working on it. Call back in two years, I'll have developed my rudimentary system into something that actually works. (well, it works now. Only in my head though, have to get it all written down properly first)

Playability not gauranteed. Basic understanding of calculus and statistical physics recommended.

It's magic all right, I have charted out the magical theory behind fireballs and stone throwing.
There's some stuff about particles and turing machine states which you don't need to know to use a fireball. But you had better be good at designing systems if you want to make a new spell.



You see, the problem comes when your basic rules are too far divorced from desired effects. Like my particle system above requires about three layers of abstraction and approximation before you get to the end result (a fireball)

Most magic systems, like D&D, have arbitrary magic.
That is, magic works by a formula, deviate from it, and it doesn't work. Not blowing up or summoning random stuff, you get nothing. powder A and liquid B = fireball. powder A + powder C = a messy mixture of powder A and C.

I have no problems with that. After all, characters are wizards, not players. However, this often generates massive holes in the system, allowing you to get extremely strange results from a reasonable extrapolation.
eg. starting the industrial revolution in D&D via permanent wall of fire...
Or making a grey goo disaster. Or strange gravity warping to go FTL. Or infinite information processing power and perfect future prediction.

I often meet "don't bring physics into magic". I would then like to ask, what would happen if I tried it in-game? Any effect other than "you can't do that" is useful. Explosions can be weaponized, summons can be enslaved. And failing all that, fake information to cause others to try the same thing can be sowed. (with effects that you now know and can plan around)

All I'm asking for, is for magic to be characterized. Not explained, just... known. (not necessarily IC known, OOC known)

TheThan
2010-04-22, 01:59 PM
With a sprinkling of parmesan and a smattering of olive oil.

No seriously I like my magic to be ritualistic, capricious, powerful but dangerous or with a cost attached to it.