PDA

View Full Version : Explicit vs. Implicit Spell Effects



Zurvan
2015-01-30, 08:36 PM
So I often wonder what you guys consider cooler for both RPG, movies and games.

Explicit spell effects, full of colors, rays, flames, electricity, energy and fireworks. Full of light and wonder and the effects are seen and obvious.

Or implicit with no visible connection between the caster and target. All that is seen is an initial cause then the following effect. Perhaps there is a gesture from the caster then some sort of ill effect is noticed upon the target.

What you guys consider a better representation of magic in your games?

Here we have some examples:

Gandalf vs Saruman Fight Scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Vyhve9gtg

Dumbledore Vs. Voldermort:
And Dumbledore Vs Voldemort: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UunqBAHBDo8)


In the two movies, The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, we have two pairs of wizard rivals and two climactic magical combat scenes.

The fight between Dumbledore and Voldamort uses explicit magical effects. You can see the streams of light connecting the two casters. It is a magical spectacle full of awe and raw energy.

The fight between Gandalf and Saruman uses implicit effects. There is nothing visible connecting the two. When one caster pushes forth with his hands and staff, the other goes flying. An invisible force is implied to exist between them. Instead of a spectacle, the combat has more of the feel of a boxing match–simple violence, but with the contact being magical instead of physical.

So what you guys prefer spectacular or subtle magic?

The normal description of Disintegrate spell, A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger hits the target and it flash in way you can see his skeleton getting entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust.

http://mraaktagon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/bonehill.jpg
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/2xZ0H6D9wETo3sSXtAJ.gif

Or just point at the target mumble a few words and it gets completely disintegrated.

http://mraaktagon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/disintigrate.jpg

Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhSBtClJAnU) but Without levitating.

Milo v3
2015-01-30, 09:03 PM
I prefer implicit.

Erik Vale
2015-01-30, 09:05 PM
I prefer the option for both.


There are times when you want to be obviously breaking up a mountain and throwing it at people, other times, that would make your spell useless.

Alberic Strein
2015-01-30, 10:12 PM
Implicit gives a really good sense for the occult. Magic can be felt, but not seen, its reaches, effects, nature are unknown. It is quite litterally a power of the dark, foreign and incomprehensible.

But as a magic system, for roleplaying games, you need to map out rules, effects, triggers, duration, targets, components, etc... In this sense, keeping magic implicit in those circumstances seems counter-productive, explicit magic makes all the more sense here.

Forrestfire
2015-01-30, 10:43 PM
Honestly, it completely depends on the character. There are some characters that I want to be able to do stuff like walk into a room and have something die, and there are some characters I want to be able to make very flashy effect with. Sometimes I want to play a subtle mage, and sometimes I'd rather pretend I'm a touhou character (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJxaXWLlWx8#t=323).

I think both kinds of magic are cool, and agree with Alberic Strein that 'invisible' magic feels more occult. Most of the time, though, I play my wizard-types like superheros instead of Gandalf, so that feel, while important for many characters, doesn't come up as much.

neonchameleon
2015-01-30, 11:18 PM
Honestly, it completely depends on the character. There are some characters that I want to be able to do stuff like walk into a room and have something die, and there are some characters I want to be able to make very flashy effect with. Sometimes I want to play a subtle mage, and sometimes I'd rather pretend I'm a touhou character (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJxaXWLlWx8#t=323).

I think both kinds of magic are cool, and agree with Alberic Strein that 'invisible' magic feels more occult. Most of the time, though, I play my wizard-types like superheros instead of Gandalf, so that feel, while important for many characters, doesn't come up as much.

This. And there's a third type. Coincidental. Where there is no direct link between the spell being cast and the results. Which gets really occult.

SgtCarnage92
2015-01-31, 12:12 AM
I can see the use of both. I've never considered the difference but admittedly it's interesting and could say a lot about the casters themselves which style of magic they use. I tend to lean toward the more "flashy" style magic in my games because it's exciting and in your face but i suppose Implicit magic can be much more intimidating and unsettling. I think both have their place in games and depending on the characters using it and the games particular tone.

Just an FYI I'm trying to think of ways to do more implicit versions of traditionally explicit spells like fireball...:smallbiggrin:

Milo v3
2015-01-31, 12:22 AM
Just an FYI I'm trying to think of ways to do more implicit versions of traditionally explicit spells like fireball...:smallbiggrin:

Could be proper heat rather than a fireball since that isn't visible, or it could just be an explosion out of nowhere rather than coming from a bead fired from the caster.

Alberic Strein
2015-01-31, 12:47 AM
Could be proper heat rather than a fireball since that isn't visible, or it could just be an explosion out of nowhere rather than coming from a bead fired from the caster.

Wouldn't the refraction of air still be visible then?
(I say that, but the image of things deforming and then a person being set on fire does seem occult enough)

And since it's heat, wouldn't the person and its clothes still burn?

Could we tackle the problem in another way? For example, with burns, matter is not destroyed, it is replaced with burnt, corroded useless material. So couldn't implicit magic forgo the means and directly implement the consequences on the target instead of showing the ball of fire being thrown?

Milo v3
2015-01-31, 12:55 AM
Could we tackle the problem in another way? For example, with burns, matter is not destroyed, it is replaced with burnt, corroded useless material. So couldn't implicit magic forgo the means and directly implement the consequences on the target instead of showing the ball of fire being thrown?

Seeing someone react and feel as though they were on fire, all the while their skin is going burnt and breaking down would be..... rather horrific.

jedipotter
2015-01-31, 01:45 AM
I use and like both. They both have a place in my world.

I really strive to break magic up by both race and culture. I really hate the mess in most games, like D&D, where all magic is the same and bland and known to everyone.

So the vast majority of elven magic is of the subtle type. A lot of nature magic is this way, and it's favored by Moon and Wild Elves. Gold elves like the spectacular type. And then you get down to the cultures where the Avantion type spells favor spectacular light effects, and the Varittasit type have only subtle necromancy effects.

Both dwarfs and orcs like subtle magic, gnomes and dragons like spectacular.

When a spell is cast in my game, a player can use what they see to trace the spells origin and learn about the spell. And this is for real, not just rolling to have the DM tell you stuff.

goto124
2015-01-31, 04:57 AM
It's easier to describe explicit spell effects in words, and have the listeners actually know what's going on. Unless implicit happens to be easier. Then implicit.

It also depends on how you want the magic to 'feel' like. Do you want the players to know clearly what's going on? Or is there some sort of mystery to it?

You can have, say, wizard spells be explicit, and psionic magic be implicit. So the wizard throws a flashy ball of emerald-green fire from his wrinkled hands, leaving smoke in its wake as it flies through the air, and lets off a ear-shattering BOOM upon arriving at its target, covering the victim in the same emerald flames.

But the psion? She just stands there, stares at the target with her blank milky eyes, and suddenly the victim screams as black smoldering holes appear in his clothes, and his skin melts like plastic as it flows down his clothes.

I like both descriptions, incidentally.

There's actually a sliding scale of flashiness. You have Meteor Swarm, which fills the room with destructive meteorites and fire and other fancy stuff, and The Force, which is 'caster waves his hands and victim is pushed back', and then you have Disintegrate, which has a simple green ray of light come out of the wizard's index finger and turn the target into ashes.

Have many different types of spell effects, if only for variety. Mix things up. Keeps it interesting.

Dhavaer
2015-01-31, 06:52 AM
Seeing someone react and feel as though they were on fire, all the while their skin is going burnt and breaking down would be..... rather horrific.

This is how the Gnosis works in Second Apocalypse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/SecondApocalypse). Anagogic sorcerers have to use their magic to create lightning or dragon heads to burn things; Gnostic sorcerers go directly to burning and a much more powerful as a result.

goto124
2015-01-31, 07:12 AM
Gnostic sorcerers go directly to burning and a much more powerful as a result.

And then there are worlds where 'gnostics' won't be much better than their flashier peers. Though they WOULD be better at hiding their tracks... magic assassin anyone?

Suichimo
2015-01-31, 08:11 AM
I like both, even between two people of one class using the same spell. One Wizard could throw a Frieza style death ball while another could merely point at an object and get a 40' explosion. They could even have completely different verbal and somatic components, the energy being manipulated is the same, and that is what counts for iding a spell.

Seto
2015-01-31, 09:11 AM
Depends on the type of magic. If a Wizard is blasting things and making things explode, explicit is nice, it gives it this animé feel. For mind control or illusion tricks, however, I would not have it any other way than implicit.

The other schools are somewhere in between.

Strigon
2015-01-31, 09:26 AM
I must agree with Seto; anything in evocation should be explicit. A fireball should be exactly that; a ball of fire. I haven't met anyone who would think of an invisible fireball. But something like levitation, suggestion, polymorph and probably animate dead, should all be left implicit, if you ask me.
There needs to be a combination of the raw power behind magic, and also its mysterious nature, and that can only come from having a mixture of the two styles.

NichG
2015-01-31, 09:51 AM
I really don't like the kind of 'implicit' from the Gandalf vs Saruman fight. As you said, it feels like a boxing match or something, rather than anything particularly magical. That said, I think that's because it's a poor way of handling 'implicit' effects compared to what you could actually do. For want of 5 feet of spacing between Gandalf and Saruman, there'd've been no need for magic at all to have the same fight.

The point with implicit is, it shouldn't ever come to two guys in a room throwing effects at each-other. Instead, 'implicit' magic is the sort of thing where a sorceror half a world away does something and somewhere else in the world things change in subtle ways with big consequences. The thing that's impressive and/or scary about implicit magic is, you can't see the connection in-character. Only if you're in the audience can you tell that, e.g., the hero being stabbed by an easy enemy and almost dying was caused by a hostile sorceror halfway around the world making the hero's scabbard catch on their blade for just a second too long. That means that anything bad that happens by chance could have been due to ill intent all along - half of the power of it is the paranoia and fear it induces. Implicit magic should leave you asking things like 'what just happened?' and 'why did that just happen?' and 'how did things get so bad so quickly?'. Implicit magic isn't a boxing match, its someone sneaking in a few drops of sedative into one guy's water just before they fight a boxing match.

At the same time, there's definitely a place for 'explicit' magic as well. Implicit is when you want something more abstract or cerebral. Explicit is when you want something more visceral.

goto124
2015-01-31, 09:57 AM
It can be nice to use implicit spell effects. But use it too much, and don't explain it well enough, and the auidence (viewers, players, etc) will go 'huh?'. They won't even know what actually happened. It's another reason explicit effects exist.

Jay R
2015-02-02, 04:38 PM
In Champions and any other Hero System game, the default is explicit spell effects, but you can pay more to make it invisible. And people build them both ways.

I conclude that both ways have value.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-03, 02:17 AM
I like both, depending on the character.

I like seeing Magneto (also Ian McKellan) cause a big effect with a slight gesture, and I like seeing Cyclops go full blast. I like seeing Luke call his lightsaber, and I like seeing the Death Star blowing up planets.

I like things that happen on screen and are done well, and I like things that are left to my imagination apart from some shadows on the wall or some sound effects.

Segev
2015-02-05, 02:40 PM
Really, it's a matter of context. You don't want chocolate syrup on your hamburger, and you don't want ketchup on your ice cream. But in their proper contexts, both toppings are tasty.

Deophaun
2015-02-05, 03:34 PM
3.5 is rather specific about which spells have visible effects and which do not. It's a necessary distinction for certain powers, such as the Dread Witch's Fearful Empowerment, and in my reading of the poorly-worded Invisible Spell feat, that's what gets rendered invisible, not the spell effect itself (so an Invisible Spell Fog Cloud looks exactly the same as Fog Cloud).

4e is much more flexible, but whatever it is, the power's origin has to be obvious. So, that could means rays and projectiles, or it could just mean grandiose movements that are clearly in synch with the effect. Whatever, it's for the player to decide if their Paladin's divine powers are actually invoked by him staring intensely and focusing while the air visibly vibrates in a line to his target, the Psion's powers are him chucking bolts of mystical energy as he yells words of eldritch might, or the Wizard's powers cascade down as light from the heavens accompanied by angelic choirs.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-05, 03:45 PM
4e is much more flexible, but whatever it is, the power's origin has to be obvious. It doesn't need to be obvious as long as the fact that it's not obvious isn't used to get around the general understanding that monsters are aware of powers used on them and who used them.