PDA

View Full Version : The reason why magic is better



Mastikator
2012-02-20, 12:36 PM
In this post I will attempt to explore the reason why magic always comes ahead of everything else.

First, I'd like to identify what magic is. It's basically a "no"-button to the laws of physics and a "yes"-button to things you want to occur. It lets you do things that are otherwise impossible, even to the basic laws of physics, the destruction or creation of energy, the violation of the laws of logic, etc.
Secondly, why do you have such a thing in a game? There are a lot of reasons, it adds to the flavor, it makes things more interesting, it enables new possibilities, but the most important one is that it makes thing more fun.

Now that the what and why of magic is defined, lets define what are the important attributes tend to have in games.
Firstly, it lets you do anything.
Secondly, it's faster than doing it the "real" way, any magic that does something that is normally doable also, does it much better.
Thirdly it's cheap, looking at most systems I've seen, using magic is almost never costly, the times where it is it's also incredibly powerful.
Fourthly, it's incredibly powerful. A magically summoned weapon is always better than a mundane masterwork. Magic is always better than the mundane specialized version.
Fifthly, it's reliable, it always works, or at least more often than the non-magic solution.
And finally, it's risk free, there's very rarely anything that can go wrong, and even then it's only a minor penalty, never something proportional, like death.

Flexible, fast, cheap, powerful, reliable and risk free. Why would anyone ever not choose magic with these attributes intact? And for the most part, each part is sacred, if you suggest that magic should be limited in any of these ways, that magic should be so inflexible that there's no multipurpose spell, or that it should always take at least a minute to cast, or that it should always cost a significant portion of your resources (which you won't just get back), or that it just should be impotent, or occasionally fail so often that you can't rely on it in a pinch, that if it goes wrong it could do serious, perhaps permanent damage or even death. If you suggest any of that you get your head cut off, because then magic just wouldn't be useful anymore, (even though it still would).

The notion seems to be that, like in fairy tales you should be able to wave the magic wand and solve all your problems, but it's ignored that even in the fairy tale with the magic wand, the problems don't get solved when you do this, they multiply.
That's why I don't think magic can ever be balanced, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the players who are spoiled and refuse to think that maybe you shouldn't be able to just wish away any problem, but that you'd have to actually do the work and solve them, even if you have magic at your disposal. There needs to be a change in how people think about what magic is.
Identifying these six attributes was easy, and it's even easier to balance magic by toning down just ONE of them, the fact that it hasn't happened is evidence to me that the culture needs to change. I know that roleplaying offers escapism to many, I understand the importance, but I don't think it's a good enough reason.

/rant

(and for the record, yes I have seen systems where the magic was actually balanced)

Friv
2012-02-20, 01:16 PM
Now that the what and why of magic is defined, lets define what are the important attributes tend to have in games.
Firstly, it lets you do anything.
Secondly, it's faster than doing it the "real" way, any magic that does something that is normally doable also, does it much better.
Thirdly it's cheap, looking at most systems I've seen, using magic is almost never costly, the times where it is it's also incredibly powerful.
Fourthly, it's incredibly powerful. A magically summoned weapon is always better than a mundane masterwork. Magic is always better than the mundane specialized version.
Fifthly, it's reliable, it always works, or at least more often than the non-magic solution.
And finally, it's risk free, there's very rarely anything that can go wrong, and even then it's only a minor penalty, never something proportional, like death.

All of these are only true in D&D. Many games, both of the RPG and computer variety, have very different responses for all six of your points, so...


That's why I don't think magic can ever be balanced, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the players who are spoiled and refuse to think that maybe you shouldn't be able to just wish away any problem, but that you'd have to actually do the work and solve them, even if you have magic at your disposal. There needs to be a change in how people think about what magic is.

(and for the record, yes I have seen systems where the magic was actually balanced)

... ok, now I'm actually kind of confused. You are arguing that magic can never be balanced in RPGs, and then saying you've played RPGs where magic is balanced? So you're undermining your own argument?

bloodtide
2012-02-20, 01:49 PM
First, I'd like to identify what magic is. It's basically a "no"-button to the laws of physics and a "yes"-button to things you want to occur. It lets you do things that are otherwise impossible, even to the basic laws of physics, the destruction or creation of energy, the violation of the laws of logic, etc.

That's not right, I always hated the magic vs science argument. Where science has the side of logic and right and magic is all unreality and wrong. Magic does not violate the laws of nature, it just has other laws it follows. Just as you don't have the laws of magic, does not mean they don't exist. for example if you were to show someone from 1750 a radio, they would think it's 'magic' that you can make music in a box. But it's only magic as so much as they don't understand how it works.



Now that the what and why of magic is defined, lets define what are the important attributes tend to have in games.
Firstly, it lets you do anything.
Secondly, it's faster than doing it the "real" way, any magic that does something that is normally doable also, does it much better.
Thirdly it's cheap, looking at most systems I've seen, using magic is almost never costly, the times where it is it's also incredibly powerful.
Fourthly, it's incredibly powerful. A magically summoned weapon is always better than a mundane masterwork. Magic is always better than the mundane specialized version.
Fifthly, it's reliable, it always works, or at least more often than the non-magic solution.
And finally, it's risk free, there's very rarely anything that can go wrong, and even then it's only a minor penalty, never something proportional, like death.


1.Magic sure can't do 'anything'. Unless your talking of the vague and general 'anything' as in 'any person can do anything'(like I can eat anything I want for lunch).
2.Magic is not always faster or always better. It's simply a way of doing things. Your not 'cheating' using magic any more then your 'cheating' using a skill.
3.Most systems magic has a cost. Everything has a cost...
4.It depends on 'better'.
5.I'm not sure why you'd say magic always works, lots of systems have rules for magic failure. And plenty can go wrong with magic.



The notion seems to be that, like in fairy tales you should be able to wave the magic wand and solve all your problems, but it's ignored that even in the fairy tale with the magic wand, the problems don't get solved when you do this, they multiply.
That's why I don't think magic can ever be balanced, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the players who are spoiled and refuse to think that maybe you shouldn't be able to just wish away any problem, but that you'd have to actually do the work and solve them, even if you have magic at your disposal. There needs to be a change in how people think about what magic is.

I don't think most people have a problem seeing magic for what it is. Most people I know think of magic as 'just another way of doing things', but not the 'impossible anything whatever' idea.

And sure I have met tons of players that lie the escapism of wishing problems away with something like magic. But I don't often game with that type of person.

But I can agree that the attitudes about magic, and even role-playing need to change. Though I often stand alone here.

jindra34
2012-02-20, 02:22 PM
Agree that the OP has a very 3.X centered view. I'm trying to think of a system not born out of it that treats magic in such a way and am having serious trouble, the closest I can think of is Exalted where pretty much anything of worth can use magic innately, but that kind removes some of the balance issue with magic.

ko_sct
2012-02-20, 02:23 PM
Well if you define magic only by saying its faster,stronger,cheaper and safer than mundane, it's normal that it's better than mundane.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be the case.

You could make a system where magic is slower, to the point of being useless in middle of a battle. The mages would carry pistols for battles and use magic before/after/between. (Like in 7th seas I think, haven't played it)

You could make a system where magic is not stronger than mundane. Everything you could do the normal way, it would be more efficient without magic. Magic being used in places mundane can't reach (talking to the dead, traveling through the planes, etc.)

You could make a system where magic is costly. Inflicting penalties to the caster, weakening them or exhausting them. In combat you would have to chose between using your crossbow, taking time to kill them, or using your uberspell and being weaker if they manage to counter it.

You could make a system where magic is risky. Like in Mage: The awakening in front of normal people. Using it all the time resulting in a rip in space-time and lots of monster and bad things (I think Iron Heroes and WH40k goes this way)
.
...
.....
...
.
Aaaaaaand now I realize that's what your saying... the thing is, we don't need some kind of revolution in the way of thinking, like you said, there's plenty of systems where magic is actually balance. It's not about people refusing a system where magic isn't the awnser to everything. It's that there's plenty of system that where poorly designed *cough*D&D*cough* resulting in unbalanced magic.

gkathellar
2012-02-20, 02:34 PM
First, I'd like to identify what magic is. It's basically a "no"-button to the laws of physics and a "yes"-button to things you want to occur. It lets you do things that are otherwise impossible, even to the basic laws of physics, the destruction or creation of energy, the violation of the laws of logic, etc.

As Bloodtide has said, there's no such thing as a truly incoherent system. Magic doesn't "violate the laws of physics" so much as it simply implies that the laws of physics are different than what we expect them to be. All magic systems obey their own laws and their own internal logic, even if that logic is simply, "please the audience with sparkly lights."


Firstly, it lets you do anything.
Secondly, it's faster than doing it the "real" way, any magic that does something that is normally doable also, does it much better.
Thirdly it's cheap, looking at most systems I've seen, using magic is almost never costly, the times where it is it's also incredibly powerful.
Fourthly, it's incredibly powerful. A magically summoned weapon is always better than a mundane masterwork. Magic is always better than the mundane specialized version.
Fifthly, it's reliable, it always works, or at least more often than the non-magic solution.
And finally, it's risk free, there's very rarely anything that can go wrong, and even then it's only a minor penalty, never something proportional, like death.

... this thread should be in 3.5, because the plethora of games out there where this isn't true is enormous.


Why would anyone ever not choose magic with these attributes intact? And for the most part, ... you get your head cut off, because then magic just wouldn't be useful anymore, (even though it still would).

Seriously, what are you talking about? Do you mean that people on this forum are hostile toward proposed 3.5 fixes that "dampen down" magic? Because (a) no, not everyone, and (b) such fixes typically run into problems with 3.5's core mechanics, which is why people are so down about them.


The notion seems to be that, like in fairy tales you should be able to wave the magic wand and solve all your problems, but it's ignored that even in the fairy tale with the magic wand, the problems don't get solved when you do this, they multiply.

Every part of this statement depends on the fairy tale in question.

Also, in most of the folktales and fairy stories it does apply to, magic is an ominous, distant force that is somewhere between uncaring and actively hostile. That changes things, guy.


That's why I don't think magic can ever be balanced, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the players who are spoiled and refuse to think that maybe you shouldn't be able to just wish away any problem, but that you'd have to actually do the work and solve them, even if you have magic at your disposal. There needs to be a change in how people think about what magic is.

So your point is that most of the above points are other people's attitudes, not your own, despite you presenting them as your own, and ... I mean, all of the above points only apply to 3.5 anyway, where yes, what you're talking about is a widely-known and well-identified problem.

Yora
2012-02-20, 02:36 PM
The reason why magic is stronger: Poor game design.

Siegel
2012-02-20, 02:42 PM
Magic doesn't solve problems - that's what the people using it are for
Harry Dresden

Magic doesn't solve problems - it just creates problems that wouldn't be there without it
Harry Dresden (paraphrased)

Bagelson
2012-02-20, 03:40 PM
I don't think I've ever played a game that ticks all of those conditions. I have, however, played games where magic is unbalanced and too powerful compared to its mundane equivalents (as in: magic users get a disproportional amount of spotlight). But that's why I now prefer systems where the mechanics of "I can throw a ball of fire" and "I can spit so hard I can put out an eye at 50 paces" are the same mechanics with different fluff.

jseah
2012-02-20, 03:49 PM
I have thought about this problem as well and came to a different conclusion.

I did take "better" to mean "results in breaking the world with a little thought and some hard work". And I won't claim this applies to any magic system, just the few that my assumptions apply to, which is surprisingly many.

The assumption is that magic is understandable. People actively do magic, not wait for it to happen.

The effort (if any) in using magic is divorced from its effects. There is often only one type of effort that can achieve many different unrelated effects. Exhaustion, magic points, lifeforce, youth, you name it; most magic systems don't ask you to pay with something different for every single spell.

Contrast with the real world. Lifting a sword strains muscles and needs skill, burning a candle requires fat (and a spark), baking a cake needs ingredients and skill, forging a horseshoe requires metal & heat and more skill, etc. etc.
The real world not only makes you pay differently for different things you do, it also requires you to learn independent skills for each separate task.

But if magic were not broken, then it wouldn't be magic anymore.

Imagine a not-broken magic system.
Every spell requires ages of practice before you would consider it "familiar". Ranging from a week to ten years depending on difficulty. The more complex the task, the longer it takes. And using the spell itself involves just as much physical and mental effort as doing the task normally.

Every spell takes from you or requires materials and energy to do things, equal to what would have taken a normal person to do anyway.

Not really "magic" anymore.
People don't want their magic to be complicated. If magic is to do everything, then magic must be as complicated as everything it is to do; if it is not to be broken.
If magic is technically simple, like it often is, then using it in complicated ways makes fantastic examples of brokenness.


Magic is often depicted as a translation system that turns thoughts (magic points may be required) into action. That alone makes magic broken.

Eldan
2012-02-20, 03:51 PM
So, is there any system other than D&D where these points are the case?

gkathellar
2012-02-20, 03:55 PM
So, is there any system other than D&D where these points are the case?

Certain other d20 games, I suppose?

Not even Exalted fits, because (A) magic is implicit in the very well-defined physical laws of that universe and behaves very consistently as a result, and (B) while you can do anything with Essence in theory, practice is a different question.

Eldan
2012-02-20, 03:57 PM
Hm. The only other d20 system I've played is Mutants and Masterminds, where magic is really more a fluff definition than anything else as mutants or gadgeteers or aliens or any number of other types of supers can do everything that magic can just as easily.

gkathellar
2012-02-20, 04:11 PM
PF, obviously, though that's not really distinct from D&D.

Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, though those are both pseudo-D&D games and are direct results of Monte Likes Magic syndrome.

True 20 and Fantasy Craft both allow for supremely-powerful casters, but they also allow for much more limited casters. Modular systems, those.

My familiarity beyond that is limited.

Manateee
2012-02-20, 04:15 PM
Flexible, fast, cheap, powerful, reliable and risk free. Why would anyone ever not choose magic with these attributes intact? And for the most part, each part is sacred,
No they're not. Not even in the fiction the games are based on.

Totally Guy
2012-02-20, 04:20 PM
Price is the most interesting part of a magic system.

A good price means the user has to deal with conflict and that tells us about who the character is. Which is ultimately a good thing.

There was a Penny Arcade - Extra Credits (http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/choice-and-conflict) kind of about it.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-20, 04:21 PM
I hate when it is implied (if not outright said) that magic can do anything and mundanes have to follow the laws of reality. You ever read Beowulf? One Piece? Greek myths? Norse myths (specifically Thor)? Batman? Yes, those have god-blooded and outright GODS. But at level 20, you should be a martial god (minus thunderbolts or shapeshifting or spontaneously compusting mortals).

Actually, Batman is more what a wizard should be, not a mundane like a rogue. He's versatile, and can defeat anything with time and information, but it's rather easy to beat him if you stay out of the spotlight and get him on your first attack.

kyoryu
2012-02-20, 05:11 PM
Magic is better because game designers write systems where magic is unbalanced.

Whether this is a good thing or not is a matter for debate.

Jothki
2012-02-20, 08:38 PM
I'm more surprised at the ubiquitousness of systems where fighter-types apparently insist on not learning any magic whatsoever.

Take D&D. If a high-level Fighter is already basing at least 25% of his chance to hit on waving a sharp piece of magical metal around, why does he suddenly become completely incompetent when that piece of metal no longer has an edge?

If I was designing a system, high-level Fighters would be magically-enhanced juggernauts, while high-level Rogues would basically be Batman.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-20, 08:45 PM
Another good point is: why is 3.X magic strong, quick, easy, and risk-free? In Berserk, for example, magic is very powerful, but the spellcaster would've been killed a long time ago if it weren't for Guts's protection during the precious time it took to complete a powerful spell.

That also, of course, means we need a way for melee characters to intercept all enemy attacks within, oh, 20 feet? A large character with a spiked chain, Improved Trip, and Stand Still is good at this, but there's still the fact that they can't actually intercept attacks targeted at weaker allies.

kyoryu
2012-02-20, 08:59 PM
Another good point is: why is 3.X magic strong, quick, easy, and risk-free? In Berserk, for example, magic is very powerful, but the spellcaster would've been killed a long time ago if it weren't for Guts's protection during the precious time it took to complete a powerful spell.

Except for 4e, D&D is pretty bad at modeling protecting allies. Intercepting attacks isn't really how things work IRL, but standing between the enemy and the target is pretty effective, since turning your back on an armed person is a generally poor idea.

But, again, D&D doesn't model that well either (any version) because you can typically suck up a single attack.

Anderlith
2012-02-20, 09:58 PM
Magic is not as you describe. If it exist then it is limited by it's existence. Gravity exists & is limited. Atoms exist & are limited. Energy exists & is limited. The only thing that is unlimited is the void, the vast unending nothingness, but that is because all of creation, all of the universe, is limited by it's existence & occupies the vast unending nothingness.

On to another point. Magic is whatever people want to view it is. Some want it to be an energy that refabricates the world, some view it as forcing beings of power to the caster's will. Some see it as a manipulation of dimensional properties. Some say Runes are magic, some say Blood is magic, some say Words are magic. Some (like me) believe that if magic exists then it is a part of the world & not apart from the world, it follows all the laws of nature, it's just that most people don't know all the laws. (We didn't need Issac Newton to tell us that stuff fell down, but he was the one who found codified the Laws of Gravity & we still don't know why)

Maybe it's your opinion that magic is some limitless force of uncreation, but don't make such a controversial statement that your opinion is the only "real truth".

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-20, 10:05 PM
Thirdly it's cheap, looking at most systems I've seen, using magic is almost never costly, the times where it is it's also incredibly powerful.
Fourthly, it's incredibly powerful. A magically summoned weapon is always better than a mundane masterwork. Magic is always better than the mundane specialized version.
Fifthly, it's reliable, it always works, or at least more often than the non-magic solution.
And finally, it's risk free, there's very rarely anything that can go wrong, and even then it's only a minor penalty, never something proportional, like death.
It's not necessary a bad thing in itself because not all of us want to play grimdark RPGs. As for magic = better… if you make it equal to mundane it shifts to utility and you will battle with mundane only means and that's about it.

MukkTB
2012-02-20, 10:30 PM
This is a 3.X problem. You have accurately described why tier 1s dominate in 3.X. You haven't really addressed other systems. For example in 4E magic doesn't dominate over nonmagic characters.

kyoryu
2012-02-20, 11:07 PM
It's not necessary a bad thing in itself because not all of us want to play grimdark RPGs. As for magic = better… if you make it equal to mundane it shifts to utility and you will battle with mundane only means and that's about it.

A) There being a drawback to magic doesn't automatically make the setting grimdark.

B) If magic is equal to mundane, then I imagine that specialists in magic will use it in combat, and specialists in mundane means will use those in combat. I don't see this as a problem.

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-20, 11:16 PM
A) There being a drawback to magic doesn't automatically make the setting grimdark.

B) If magic is equal to mundane, then I imagine that specialists in magic will use it in combat, and specialists in mundane means will use those in combat. I don't see this as a problem.

A) Drawback as in… what exactly? Slower casting is not grimdark, yes, but it's not fun either.

B) Why would you use magic then? Magic can be disabled with AMF, provokes AoE, etc. Mundane don't. You might use magic if there is a way to apply elemental rock-paper-scissors, but not all monsters are weak to some elements. If it's 1:1 equal then… it's more interesting to do it other way around and make mundane more magical/supernatural.

Another_Poet
2012-02-21, 01:24 AM
First, I'd like to identify what magic is. It's basically a "no"-button to the laws of physics and a "yes"-button to things you want to occur.

This is where you lost me.

Vaarsuvius' funny rant aside, this is an inaccurate way of describing magic in D&D and most fantasy gaming systems.

In D&D, magic is immanent to the universe. There are rules to how magic works, just like there are rules to how heat works. There are observable, repeatable causes (namely words, gestures and the presence of ritual ingredients) that lead to observable, repeatable effects (spell effects) and these are consistent, controllable and logical.

In other words, magic is ruled by the laws of physics of the fantasy worlds in the game.

On a metagame level we can view the rules of magic as existing for game balance, but within the game world rules of magic are rules governing how a natural force operates. And that by definition is physics.

Totally Guy
2012-02-21, 02:03 AM
A) Drawback as in… what exactly? Slower casting is not grimdark, yes, but it's not fun either.

You can't judge fun on small picture concepts.

"We'll put the money from Chance and Community Chests onto Free Parking!" This is a "fun" thing because it's awesome to pick up a load of money and there's all the tension around this square. It's stupid though as it breaks the game as a whole, it's a game about running out of money and your houserule has plugged the money sink.

Arbane
2012-02-21, 02:05 AM
I'm more surprised at the ubiquitousness of systems where fighter-types apparently insist on not learning any magic whatsoever.

Take D&D. If a high-level Fighter is already basing at least 25% of his chance to hit on waving a sharp piece of magical metal around, why does he suddenly become completely incompetent when that piece of metal no longer has an edge?

If I was designing a system, high-level Fighters would be magically-enhanced juggernauts, while high-level Rogues would basically be Batman.

Makes perfect sense to me...

One of the few good excuses I've heard for the fighter/mage divide was in Robert Asprin's "Myth Adventures" series - learning to be survive-a-fight-level good at either fighting OR magic takes so long that humans generally can't live long enough to get good at both.

Systems that completely avoid this, mostly do so by letting _everyone_ (who matters) use 'magic' of some sort - Exalted and RuneQuest both take this route.

Legends of the Wulin has everyone (who matters) knowing kung-fu, because it's a kung-fu game and all. (Magic in LotW is pretty low-key and is mostly for curses and predictions. If you want to set people on fire or make their livers explode, use kung-fu.)

Tvtyrant
2012-02-21, 02:19 AM
B) Why would you use magic then? Magic can be disabled with AMF, provokes AoE, etc. Mundane don't. You might use magic if there is a way to apply elemental rock-paper-scissors, but not all monsters are weak to some elements. If it's 1:1 equal then… it's more interesting to do it other way around and make mundane more magical/supernatural.

This is only relavant to D&D. Many systems do not have an equivalent to an AMF at all.

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 03:54 AM
A) Drawback as in… what exactly? Slower casting is not grimdark, yes, but it's not fun either.

B) Why would you use magic then? Magic can be disabled with AMF, provokes AoE, etc. Mundane don't. You might use magic if there is a way to apply elemental rock-paper-scissors, but not all monsters are weak to some elements. If it's 1:1 equal then… it's more interesting to do it other way around and make mundane more magical/supernatural.

A) Tiring? Chance of backfire or mishap, especially if pushing yourself beyond your limits? These are concepts that exist in many games.

B) Presumably "equal" would take some of those things into account.

And as far as "fun" in your first point, is it "fun" for melee types to sit back while casters push the "I win" button?

Earthwalker
2012-02-21, 05:05 AM
Oddly one "rule" of magic I prefer is -

Magic has a cost.

this seems to go against the way the OP believes magic should work. As many people have pointed out, magic works in many different ways in many different systems.

Earthdawn has all the player character have some form or magic, either to increase thier martial prowess or to cast spells.

Shadowrun has a magic system with limits, one where magic can fail and magic can kill the caster.

The idea that in DnD magic works like this and so magic can not be balanced in other systems seems odd.

jindra34
2012-02-21, 10:55 AM
A) Drawback as in… what exactly? Slower casting is not grimdark, yes, but it's not fun either.

SO using magic is only fun if its quick, reliable, and safe? What if we restricted heavily per mage so that at most a mage could do is the call and command fire or such? And you obviously don't want magic to be cut in power to where its use in combat is only just on par with mundane means.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-21, 11:49 AM
What if we restricted heavily per mage so that at most a mage could do is the call and command fire or such?

I'd play that. (http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Firebending#axzz1n2HqUwUh)

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-21, 12:35 PM
A) Tiring? Chance of backfire or mishap, especially if pushing yourself beyond your limits? These are concepts that exist in many games.
So… healing someone can backfire and kill me? Not Grimdark, right.


And as far as "fun" in your first point, is it "fun" for melee types to sit back while casters push the "I win" button?
And I said that where? I said it's better to buff melee types with supernatural rather than change mages to commoners with pointy hats and crossbows.


SO using magic is only fun if its quick, reliable, and safe? What if we restricted heavily per mage so that at most a mage could do is the call and command fire or such?
Isn't a mage with such a restriction mage is just limited evoker = archer with different damage type. Maybe minor elemental summons but then again it's the same "you have companion" again.


And you obviously don't want magic to be cut in power to where its use in combat is only just on par with mundane means.
Are you a telepath? Because I never said they didn't need some cut in power. But it's not about mages themselves. You just drop most of overpowered spells out of the window (Celerity, Gate, Polymorphs, and similar things in your RPG of choice) Also, one of the problems is Wizard's ability to learn unlimited number of spells – remove that. Also remove “I know all spells on my class list” features. Balancing overpowered with something like “hey, you cast Gate, sure, but that's 5 rounds and you are exhausted, paralyzed and you CON drops 5 points” will not give you a better game. It's either ends with more bent rules to cast faster/more reliable or will be useless. That's what I'm saying.

Anyway, some may like grimdark feel to magic. I don't. That's all.

jindra34
2012-02-21, 12:44 PM
Are you a telepath? Because I never said they didn't need some cut in power. But it's not about mages themselves. You just drop most of overpowered spells out of the window (Celerity, Gate, Polymorphs, etc.) Also, one of the problems is Wizard's ability to learn unlimited number of spells – remove that. Also remove “I know all spells on my class list” features. Balancing overpowered with something like “hey, you cast Gate, sure, but that's 5 rounds and you are exhausted, paralyzed and you CON drops 5 points” will not give you a better game. It's either ends with more bent rules to cast faster/more reliable or will be useless. That's what I'm saying.

Anyway, some may like grimdark feel to magic. I don't. That's all.

Not every game is DnD. GURPS managed to get balanced spells in that can imitate if not trounce some of the more broken spells in DnD, it just makes you work them, puts decent casting times on them and changes out the reliability. Also your not cutting the power of a mage in your example your cutting its versatility, just not to the extreme level of my fire mage example.

As for a fire mage being just a glorified archer remember it includes the ability to command fire not just create, and that can be more useful than you can imagine, and I was more talking about how broad abilities are and using that as a simple example.

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-21, 12:53 PM
Not every game is DnD. GURPS managed to get balanced spells in that can imitate if not trounce some of the more broken spells in DnD, it just makes you work them, puts decent casting times on them and changes out the reliability. Also your not cutting the power of a mage in your example your cutting its versatility, just not to the extreme level of my fire mage example.

As for a fire mage being just a glorified archer remember it includes the ability to command fire not just create, and that can be more useful than you can imagine, and I was more talking about how broad abilities are and using that as a simple example.

I don't really like GURPS for spellcasters. It makes me feel like I'm playing a super, not spellcaster, but that's just me.

As for versatility – it suffer somewhat, but they have still plenty spells (-> versatility) to learn. It's just removing things that shouldn't even exist (other than some DM tool maybe). It's not like casting a spell as a standard action in battle is a crime against humanity. When in battle you want to do something, try different things, not wait when your uber spell goes off. Replace that with 1 spell “I win, you lose”. Casting time: 1 minute, range: close. Hope someone will toss you toward enemies in the last roung. No need to waste so much paper :}
Draining costs are fine for some types of magic, like blood magic for example. It does not mean they have to have completely through the roof spells.

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 12:59 PM
So… healing someone can backfire and kill me? Not Grimdark, right.

You know, I never said that. You seem to be succumbing to the fallacy of the excluded middle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle) You also seem to have a very emotional attachment to this discussion.

At any rate, I wouldn't be overly thrilled with a system where the smallest spell had a chance of deadly backfire. Backfire doesn't have to be "deadly". It can also be proportional to both the spell being cast as well as your current state (heavily taxed from casting other spells, etc.)

In general, I don't like the idea of a mechanical action having a possibility of immediate death. For "get out of jail free card" type spells, it bothers me less, especially if the chance is relatively low, simply as a way to keep people from relying on those spells and not taking precautions.

At any rate, backfires can be anything from cosmetic, to a brief stun, to temporary loss of casting abilities, to lots of other things. "Rocks fall, you die" is not the only type of backfire that can exist, and it's certainly not the type I'd argue for as a general rule.


And I said that where? I said it's better to buff melee types with supernatural rather than change mages to commoners with pointy hats and crossbows.

Again, fallacy of the excluded middle. (And no, my answer was not that - in many ways, high-powered D&D does boil down to the melee folks waiting for the caster to press the "I win" button).

I want a game with challenge, personally. I want a game where the possibility of defeat exists. Maybe you consider that grimdark, I don't. I see games without the possibility of defeat as being rather pointless, and about half a step above Magic Tea Party.

What's generally perceived as the problem with mages is not that they do too much damage. It's that they have too many "I win" buttons that are applicable in too many circumstances.


Isn't a mage with such a restriction mage is just limited evoker = archer with different damage type. Maybe minor elemental summons but then again it's the same "you have companion" again.

I think you miss his point. It's not that mages should be limited in that way, it's that you want magic that is safe, fast, reliable, *and* high powered. You want lots of power, and absolutely no limitations.

And besides, how can you argue for melee being buffed to the point of magic when you've already explicitly said that magic *should* be more powerful than melee? Your statements contradict each other.


Balancing overpowered with something like “hey, you cast Gate, sure, but that's 5 rounds and you are exhausted, paralyzed and you CON drops 5 points” will not give you a better game. It's either ends with more bent rules to cast faster/more reliable or will be useless. That's what I'm saying.

Again, attacking a strawman. You are arguing against *any* limitations or consequences to magic by putting up the worst possible, unbalanced limitations you can think of. Using your example, there's an entire range from:

A) Insta-cast, no consequences
B) One round cast
C) Some as-yet-undefined fatigue effect
D) Possibility of minor (non-death) backfire
E) 5 round casting time, exhaustion, paralyzation, -5 con.

And no, that *doesn't* mean that all games will end up with rules bent/broken. There's lots of systems that have consequences to magic, and those systems are played *as-is* the majority of times. 3.x magic is an *anomaly*. Even D&D before 3e didn't have insta-casting with no limitations or drawbacks.


Anyway, some may like grimdark feel to magic. I don't. That's all.

There's a vast gulf between "casters can do anything with no consequences" and "grimdark." Again, I'm going to call you on the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Zeful
2012-02-21, 01:10 PM
A) Drawback as in… what exactly? Slower casting is not grimdark, yes, but it's not fun either.Well outside of your later example of backlash damage there is:
Fatigue (not representable in D&D)
power fluctuations (something used in D&D with the die system, simply up die size and lower scaling so that you use less larger dice to get the same average as more, smaller dice)
the spell outright failing (something representable easily in D&D under the right conditions).
the spell being more "taxing" than normal (something "unacceptable")
magic in general being weak/limited (given the various threads on the subject, also "unacceptable" but easy to replicate).
magic being hard enough to learn to the point of excluding other forms of training (easy to replicate, simply drop all weapon, armor and shield proficiencies from every 1-9 caster class and set their BaB to +0 at all levels, still "unacceptable")


B) Why would you use magic then? Magic can be disabled with AMF, provokes AoE, etc. Mundane don't. You might use magic if there is a way to apply elemental rock-paper-scissors, but not all monsters are weak to some elements. If it's 1:1 equal then… it's more interesting to do it other way around and make mundane more magical/supernatural.
With the current high-magic environment, why would any character in the setting not be a caster? D&D magic is hilariously easy to learn, and even a 12 could get a lot use out of spells. Magic will always see use in it's setting as long as it possesses any utility over mundane abilities, it doesn't need to be hilariously better in every way as well.

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-21, 01:51 PM
So much letters…

Mundane fighter trained all his life and still can't stop nuclear bomb, that some scientist invented. That's not fair.

Backfires:

A) Insta-cast, no consequences - Ok for minor things.

A.2) Standard action - Standard spells.

B) One round cast - Effectively you sacrifice 1 round of your actions (compared to the rest of the group) to get something. Minor sacrifice.

C) Some as-yet-undefined fatigue effect - No idea here, as “fatigue effects” can be quite different

D) Possibility of minor (non-death) backfire - So… stun is minor backfire. Mid battle. I'm not so sure unless you try to balance overpowered effect with that which is a bad idea anyway. You might use it if it does matter to you that you lose your actions (support, for example), but then again why doing that? Or, say, stat drain = even shorter days.

E) 5 round casting time, exhaustion, paralyzation, -5 con.
Rarely useful mid battle, so it must be something special. If most of the spells are like that it's not really good idea to battle with magic.



There's a vast gulf between "casters can do anything with no consequences" and "grimdark." Again, I'm going to call you on the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Magic is all utility is also somewhere in the middle. What exactly would you do to make it in the middle if you are supposed to use magic in battle? % chance to work like with skill checks? (in D&D there are saving throws for that; in theory anyway) HP drain (might work in some systems but not in others, does not make sense for all types of magic), stat drain, stuns?


And besides, how can you argue for melee being buffed to the point of magic when you've already explicitly said that magic *should* be more powerful than melee? Your statements contradict each other.
IMO magic should be better (for some values of “better”) than mundane, but “melee” is what you do not how you do it. The higher level (or whatever your RPG uses as a measure of power) you are the less mundane you become. You might have a system where everything is no better than mundane but that's pretty low fantasy. If you are fine with that – well, it's your choice. It does not mean all systems should be like that.


With the current high-magic environment, why would any character in the setting not be a caster? D&D magic is hilariously easy to learn, and even a 12 could get a lot use out of spells. Magic will always see use in it's setting as long as it possesses any utility over mundane abilities, it doesn't need to be hilariously better in every way as well.
There is no reason not be one. Other than inability to do so (or external force that will make sure you are killed for that). That's why magic is useful. If it's equal to mundane or worse… why bother? Especially if there are penalties all over the place. I mean, I'd learn some even if casting time was 10 minutes for any spell, sure (defense & utility), but for a group of adventurers who are supposed to battle all the time… you'd better have something else to do in battle other than using magic in this case.

Eldan
2012-02-21, 01:58 PM
Have a look at Shadowrun, maybe, for a quite simple and, I think, working system.

A caster knows anywhere between around two and a bit over a dozen spells, in addition to being able to summon various spirits. When casting a spell, the can choose how strong to make them. The stronger the spell, the greater the drain on the wizard's fatigue. Casting a spell has drain depending on how strong it turned out (which is partially random). This drain can be resisted partially or completely, the rest goes to mental damage. For every three points of damage taken, the character loses one die on all rolls made (which is quite significant in Shadowrun and its pool system). Cast the spell too strongly, and you take physical instead of mental damage. You might kill yourself, but only if you act pretty foolishly with your power and only if you were already pretty weak.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-21, 02:02 PM
The reason why magic ends up better is often because no-one bothers to think what it can't do. Or, in the case of D&D 3.5, only applying those thoughts to singular spells, but not magic as a whole.

Me, I prefer to keep magic limited in its interactions with the physical world. For most physical tasks, you're at least as well of doing them normally as trying to do them with magic. For some tasks there just isn't any magic to use for. On the flipside, magic extends to interaction with the spiritual, and can be used to achieve things that physical means can't.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-21, 02:03 PM
The reason why magic ends up better is often because no-one bothers to think what it can't do. Or, in the case of D&D 3.5, only applying those thoughts to singular spells, but not magic as a whole.

Me, I prefer to keep magic limited in its interactions with the physical world. For most physical tasks, you're at least as well of doing them normally as trying to do them with magic. For some tasks there just isn't any magic to use for. On the flipside, magic extends to interaction with the spiritual, and can be used to achieve things that physical means can't.

Civil War Man
2012-02-21, 02:05 PM
As for a fire mage being just a glorified archer remember it includes the ability to command fire not just create, and that can be more useful than you can imagine, and I was more talking about how broad abilities are and using that as a simple example.

As an excellent example of this, in Mage: The Ascension, 1 dot in a magical sphere allowed you to sense things covered under that sphere. You could not even control it. Just sense.

So take Forces 1. Light is covered under forces. You now have infrared vision. Radio waves are covered under Forces. You can now eavesdrop on cell phone conversations.

Matter 1. You look at a door, and know exactly where it is weakest and how much force is required to break it down. You look at a drink, and can tell if it is poisoned.

Correspondence 1. You never get lost. Ever.

Prime 1. Detect Magic. With the added bonus that you can know what manner of creature caused the magic, or even a short list of possible mages who cast the spell since all magic has certain signatures.

Rinse and repeat for all the spheres, and get even more power when you have two or more working at the same time. Combine Correspondence 1 with Life 1, Spirit 1, and/or Mind 1, and you can't be ambushed as long as the spell is active.

Even in D&D, a lot of the most useful spells are the ones that give general guidelines but otherwise impose very few limits, like Wish or Prestidigitation to use examples on both ends of the spell level spectrum.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-21, 02:08 PM
The reason why magic ends up better is often because no-one bothers to think what it can't do. Or, in the case of D&D 3.5, only applying those thoughts to singular spells, but not magic as a whole.

Me, I prefer to keep magic limited in its interactions with the physical world. For most physical tasks, you're at least as well of doing them normally as trying to do them with magic. For some tasks there just isn't any magic to use for. On the flipside, magic extends to interaction with the spiritual, and can be used to achieve things that physical means can't.

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 02:24 PM
So much letters…

Mundane fighter trained all his life and still can't stop nuclear bomb, that some scientist invented. That's not fair.


You get a choice. You can argue for "realistic", or you can argue for "fun." Pick one.

If you want to argue that magic should be more powerful because it breaks the laws of reality, fine. That's a valid position. However, then we make decisions based on that. And, reality "snapping back" is certainly a valid fiction regarding magic.

But at any rate, you don't then get to claim that multi-round casting is a bad idea because it's "not fun." Because it's "not fun" for melee types to be overshadowed in all areas, either.

So pick one.

And as far as your scientist analogy, that's a fine analogy. But scientists also don't cook up nuclear weapons in six seconds, in the middle of a battle, and with no chance of anything untoward happening. Ammo or other explosives getting hit is a *very real* danger in real life. So if you think that mages should have to spend years building a spell, and require a team of people to create it, as well as millions of gold and rare resources, then that's your opinion, but I personally think it's too restricting.

Your analogy also kind of fails in other ways. The delivery mechanism for the bomb (submarine, airplane, portable, whatever) certainly can be stopped. A bomber can be blown out of the sky, a submarine sunk. Someone with a portable nuke of some sort can be shot.


D) Possibility of minor (non-death) backfire - So… stun is minor backfire. Mid battle. I'm not so sure unless you try to balance overpowered effect with that which is a bad idea anyway. You might use it if it does matter to you that you lose your actions (support, for example), but then again why doing that? Or, say, stat drain = even shorter days.

I'm not advocating stat drain, I think it's pretty harsh, except maybe for the most powerful spells. A round of stun? Yeah, it's a drawback, and a danger. I don't see it as being that terrible, given the likelihood of it happening, and the spell it's attached to.

And why is stun a "bad idea"? That's just a flat assertion.


E) 5 round casting time, exhaustion, paralyzation, -5 con.
Rarely useful mid battle, so it must be something special. If most of the spells are like that it's not really good idea to battle with magic.

This was your example, not mine. I just put it on there to point out the spectrum of disadvantages we could be talking about.

Personally, one of my favorite magic systems was GURPS with the Unlimited Mana variant. Essentially, you had a threshold that reset over time. At any point, you could cast any spell, for any mana. If you went over the threshold, however, you started having a chance for things to go bad. How far you were over the threshold determined how bad they could go. At the lower end, the effects were minor and often cosmetic. At the high end, they could be catastrophic.


Magic is all utility is also somewhere in the middle. What exactly would you do to make it in the middle if you are supposed to use magic in battle? % chance to work like with skill checks? (in D&D there are saving throws for that; in theory anyway) HP drain (might work in some systems but not in others, does not make sense for all types of magic), stat drain, stuns?

That's one way of being "in the middle." I'd argue that's closer to grimdark, actually, and making magic unusable in combat is not something that I, or anyone in this thread, has advocated. It's another strawman.

I'd say "in the middle" would be either:

1) Making magic closer to on-par with melee in terms of effect
2) Adding possibility of disadvantages/backfires/etc. to balance stronger magic
3) Increasing casting time/making casters more vulnerable while casting to require melee to protect them

Note that these can all be applied on a per-spell basis. Spells that are roughly on-par with melee shouldn't have long casting times or significant backfire possibilities.


IMO magic should be better (for some values of “better”) than mundane, but “melee” is what you do not how you do it. The higher level (or whatever your RPG uses as a measure of power) you are the less mundane you become. You might have a system where everything is no better than mundane but that's pretty low fantasy. If you are fine with that – well, it's your choice. It does not mean all systems should be like that.

I dunno. I think our mundane world is pretty awesome. We have people that do absolutely amazing things. SEAL team members, extreme sports people, Olympic athletes, scientists...

And really, even D&D 1/2e had a lot more limitations on magic, and I wouldn't call them low magic. Again, we're getting into the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because something isn't as ultra-high-powered as D&D 3.x doesn't mean it's "low magic".


There is no reason not be one. Other than inability to do so (or external force that will make sure you are killed for that). That's why magic is useful. If it's equal to mundane or worse… why bother? Especially if there are penalties all over the place. I mean, I'd learn some even if casting time was 10 minutes for any spell, sure (defense & utility), but for a group of adventurers who are supposed to battle all the time… you'd better have something else to do in battle other than using magic in this case.

For war, why do we have airplanes, tanks, a navy, SEAL teams, ground troops, helicopters, artillery, etc.? Why can't we just pick the one that's best and have all of that?

Because it's about interdependence, each class having strengths and weaknesses, and combining them in a team so that they enhance each other's strengths and cover each other's weaknesses. If you're putting together a hockey team, you don't necessarily want a team of all star centers. You need gritty defense, you need a grind line, you need wingmen, you need a goalie, you need lots of things. Teams made of nothing but "stars" generally do poorly, anyway.

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-21, 02:55 PM
You get a choice. You can argue for "realistic", or you can argue for "fun." Pick one.
Why? Is there some absolute law that prevents me from doing so? It's a game, whatever rules it uses it is supposed to be fun.


But at any rate, you don't then get to claim that multi-round casting is a bad idea because it's "not fun." Because it's "not fun" for melee types to be overshadowed in all areas, either.
Define "overshadowed". When casters can do melee's job better it's a problem. But it's not a problem of fast spellcasting it's a problem of overpowered spells they should not even have. You gated (or whatever) monster to help you? Fine, you are sustaining that or it disappears. If that's is how you understand multi-round casting I'm fine with that. If you say it's you spend X time and then it goes off then it's not fun. As for why… everyone are playing and you are doing nothing. That's why. Stun is the same thing.


Your analogy also kind of fails in other ways. The delivery mechanism for the bomb (submarine, airplane, portable, whatever) certainly can be stopped. A bomber can be blown out of the sky, a submarine sunk.
But a fighter can't do that unless he is superhuman or suddenly have access to something outside of his class abilities. Isn't that like using magic to combat magic? :} I don't understand why it's so bad by itself. Yes, you need one to defeat it. Melee just have to do supernatural feats so they effectively have the said "magic", just different. If you want to beat with just your muscles & mind (psionics does not count here) alone it will be hard and/or require resources.


Personally, one of my favorite magic systems was GURPS with the Unlimited Mana variant. Essentially, you had a threshold that reset over time. At any point, you could cast any spell, for any mana. If you went over the threshold, however, you started having a chance for things to go bad.
Ok, this one seems like an interesting idea.


I'd say "in the middle" would be either:
1) Making magic closer to on-par with melee in terms of effect

I'm not against melee itself be on par with magic per se. However I want the bar to be higher because mundane melee is pretty low.

As for quite strong disadvantages I don't like them because in effect they will give you something way too strong. Otherwise why cast it? Unless you are cornered and have no way to get out of the situation anyway. Yes, caster might be dead, but your group is supposed to deal with aftereffects & other comrades caster could have.


I dunno. I think our mundane world is pretty awesome. We have people that do absolutely amazing things. SEAL team members, extreme sports people, Olympic athletes, scientists...
I don't think athletes and scientists quite work with direct battles (what they do is still amazing). And those who do are usually use something that "wizards" (scientists) invented. So, in effect, they are using "magic" outside of their class.

In fantasy games such a force is magic. If characters do not have enough of these resources (regardless of their class) it's a problem [in the system]. If you suddenly want “screw this, I fight without it” you'll have a hard time. I think it's normal.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-21, 03:01 PM
Your analogy also kind of fails in other ways. The delivery mechanism for the bomb (submarine, airplane, portable, whatever) certainly can be stopped. A bomber can be blown out of the sky, a submarine sunk. Someone with a portable nuke of some sort can be shot.


Heck, the nuke itself can be shot. Fissive material is not, in itself, highly volatile - it needs a delicate ignition mechanism to create the explosion. If you put a bullet through that, then there won't be one.

Of course, if a nuke is already flying towards you, putting a bullet through it requires inhuman marksmanship or extraordinary luck, and you're still likely to be crushed by a huge chunk of metal falling on you at high velocity. Of course, this assumes you're carrying a man-held firearm, and not using, say, Anti-Aircraft Artillery or missiles to intercept the nuke.

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 03:25 PM
Why? Is there some absolute law that prevents me from doing so? It's a game, whatever rules it uses it is supposed to be fun.

It's important if you're trying to make a consistent argument. Otherwise, it's just what you want, and rationalization.

"The game is more fun for everyone when melee and casters are close to the same overall power."

"But that's not realistic."

"Okay, then how about multi-round casting, especially for more powerful spells?"

"That's not fun."

See how that doesn't work?


Define "overshadowed". When casters can do melee's job better it's a problem. But it's not a problem of fast spellcasting it's a problem of overpowered spells they should not even have. You gated (or whatever) monster to help you? Fine, you are sustaining that or it disappears. If that's is how you understand multi-round casting I'm fine with that. If you say it's you spend X time and then it goes off then it's not fun. As for why… everyone are playing and you are doing nothing. That's why. Stun is the same thing.

Again, you're moving the goalposts. You're now claiming that casters shouldn't have these overpowered spells, but previously, when asked if "fast, no consequence, no failure" magic would be sufficient if the power was brought more in line with melee, you said it wouldn't be.

And guess what? It's pretty common in RPGs that at some point you'll be out of combat for a turn or two. Melee types get stunned, or knocked to the ground (and "I get up" isn't exactly being involved in combat).

And the problem isn't so much that casters do melee's job better than melee (though in some cases they can), it's that casters have so many ways of making melee irrelevant.


But a fighter can't do that unless he is superhuman or suddenly have access to something outside of his class abilities. Isn't that like using magic to combat magic? :} I don't understand why it's so bad by itself. Yes, you need one to defeat it. Melee just have to do supernatural feats so they effectively have the said "magic", just different. If you want to beat with just your muscles & mind (psionics does not count here) alone it will be hard and/or require resources.

You're assuming that 3.x magic power is the baseline.


Ok, this one seems like an interesting idea.

It's also worth noting that GURPS magic is lower-powered than 3.x in general, but yeah. This is more the kind of system that I'm thinking of. See, not totally grimdark, offers casters options while limiting their overall power, and I really like the flavor.


I'm not against melee itself be on par with magic per se. However I want the bar to be higher because mundane melee is pretty low.

It's pretty low in 3.x, at any rate.


As for quite strong disadvantages I don't like them because in effect they will give you something way too strong. Otherwise why cast it? Unless you are cornered and have no way to get out of the situation anyway. Yes, caster might be dead, but your group is supposed to deal with aftereffects & other comrades caster could have.

"unless you're cornered." Yup, that's pretty much the scenario. It gives the caster a choice - I can use the emergency button to pull our butts out of the fire, but there's a risk involved in it.


I don't think athletes and scientists quite work with direct battles (what they do is still amazing). And those who do are usually use something that "wizards" (scientists) invented. So, in effect, they are using "magic" outside of their class.

Scientists are limited by the mundane world, magic is not. What scientists do, by definition, is mundane.

The point is that even completely mundane people do some pretty amazing things. What makes people heroic is them overcoming adversity, not just being so powerful that there *is* no adversity.


In fantasy games such a force is magic. If characters do not have enough of these resources (regardless of their class) it's a problem [in the system]. If you suddenly want “screw this, I fight without it” you'll have a hard time. I think it's normal.

This is true if you're playing a very, extremely, high magic game. If that's what you want, that's fine, and you're right, there's no purpose in having non-magical characters in such a world. But D&D typically *isn't* that high magic, as evidenced by the fact that most NPCs *aren't magical*. And just being lower than that level isn't "grimdark." Most fantasy scenarios are not so high-magic that the typical person has magical powers, and yet avoid being grimdark.

And you're right, it's a problem in the system. But it can be looked at two ways - either melee is broken for not being powerful enough, or magic is broken for being too powerful and cheap. (It can also be somewhere in the middle). Personally, looking at the tier system, I tend to conceptually prefer Tier 3 or so - characters are good at their specialty, and useful outside of it.

Grinner
2012-02-21, 03:32 PM
It's times like these that I like to throw this link (http://hyboria.xoth.net/sorcery/low_magic_system.htm) out.

Tenno Seremel
2012-02-21, 03:42 PM
I'm not good at large discussions for long, so let's assume I have said everything I have about this :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 03:49 PM
I'd also like to point out how 3.x-specific this argument.

In 1st ed, you had a maximum number of spells known per level, only a few spells known to start, had to find the other spells (there was typically no "magic mart"), and had a chance to fail to learn a spell - which meant that you could basically never learn it, unless you failed to learn your minimum number of spells for that level.

Most powerful spells had a casting time that allowed for interruption, and many of the powerful spells had a chance of "backfire" of some sort or another.

The power level of 3.x is pretty much isolated to exactly that. It's not a blanket case, even across D&D (even excluding 4e).


I'm not good at large discussions for long, so let's assume I have said everything I have about this :smallsmile:

NP. I had previously replied before I saw your message.

I'm pretty sure that I've figured out the core disagreement here anyway - it's not about magic, it's about what Tier of play you prefer. You clearly prefer Tier 1 play, and that's fine, and doesn't really need any justification apart from that.

Frozen_Feet
2012-02-21, 04:09 PM
Just to bring up a magic system where magic has chance of failure and drawbacks, but can hardly be called Grimdark: CODA rules system, as seen in Decipher's Lord of the Rings roleplaying game.

To cast a spell, you must succeed in a stamina roll against the spell's Target Number. Succeed, and you fire off your spell no trouble. Fail, and not only does your spell do nothing, you also get Fatigue, imposing a general penalty to everything you do, also making further castings harder.

In addition, casting lots of spells in rapid succession increases the TN for stamina rolls, so spamming any given spell is ill-adviced.

Now, this prolly sounds like the much maligned Truenaming system of D&D 3.5. But it works, because the assumption is that magic is not the only thing you're doing (the rationale being, "even Gandalf mostly used a sword"). Singular spells can still be very powerful.

In addition, going from Hale to Winded is only a -1 penalty, and out-of-combat, recovering from that takes 15 minutes. Out-of-combat, this means spells are usable almost at-will.

Now, I'd like to go back to the underlined part, because people seem to be irrationally objecting to that idea. I've seen lot of people complain about lack of spell slots or what have you, saying that if they are to play a magician, they want to do some magic. But it's a rare fantasy setting where magicians are supposed to do magic all the time, in every situation. In non-RPG fiction, magicians often hold another role, such as the party face or loremaster. That you're a magician first, doesn't mean you can't be a crossbow archer second.

Totally Guy
2012-02-21, 04:20 PM
I think magic costs, limitations, overall concept etc. is a setting element.


"There is no one true way, (except the way that D&D does it)."

gkathellar
2012-02-21, 06:44 PM
You get a choice. You can argue for "realistic", or you can argue for "fun." Pick one.

If you want to argue that magic should be more powerful because it breaks the laws of reality, fine.

I don't even begin to understand the rationale behind this statement. Once you've added magic, you've changed the laws of reality, not broken them. At that point, what prevents you from changing those rules further, so that you can legitimately have it both ways?

kyoryu
2012-02-21, 08:39 PM
I don't even begin to understand the rationale behind this statement. Once you've added magic, you've changed the laws of reality, not broken them. At that point, what prevents you from changing those rules further, so that you can legitimately have it both ways?

Nothing.

The issue is when you argue that magicians should have less limitations becuase it's realistic, regardless of gameplay concerns, and then argue that they shouldn't have limitations because of gameplay concerns.

The argument is usually:

"Hey, wizards are OP and it makes the game less fun for others. They should be brought in line."
"No way! It makes sense that wizards should be powerful, because MAGIC! Making them weaker makes no sense and is illogical!"
"Okay, fine then, how about increasing casting time, or introducing some kind of drawback/failure chance/backfire chance? That seems to make sense, given that you're warping the laws of reality, and is certainly fitting in with the flavor of lots of literature."
"No way! It may make sense, but it's not FUN!"

See? The rationale for the argument changes, there's no consistency. It's a rationalization, not a consistent position. It's the same basic argument as:

"Hey, Fighters should be able to decapitate people in one hit! I'm swinging around a pointy sword!"
"Okay, if you want to go with a realistic damage system, that's fine, but then getting hit will cause wounds which will give you penalties."
"No way! That's not fun!"

Zeful
2012-02-21, 08:51 PM
At that point, what prevents you from changing those rules further, so that you can legitimately have it both ways?

Everyone who demands that caster abilities be interpreted in the most beneficial senses even when the interpretation is against the rules. Everyone who claims that various combat maneuvers should be hard "because realism". Everyone who effectively says, "if you're going to meaningfully nerf casters you might as well just remove them".

In short most of everyone.