Wizards! How to make them talk?

[Azreal]

What's your favorite way to make your NPC Wizard talk about magic?

Like with weird wizard jargon that's hard to follow.

[ruy343]

What's your favorite way to make your NPC Wizard talk about magic?

Like with weird wizard jargon that's hard to follow.

I like to make them squeaky, old, batty men, who carry around a bunch of useless magic items (see the thread on useless magic items if you require inspiration.

Alternatively, you could have them talk about them manipulating the threads of reality, weaving in their own threads of arcana into space-time. Have them explain it to people like weaving.

Or you could take the Vaarsuvius route: :vaarsuvius: I'm a little preoccupied with telling the laws of physics to SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!

[Ardantis]

I usually just go for the slightly loopy-

but I feel that being entirely metaphorical would work too.

[Giant2005]

Man... When I saw this thread title I got all excited and thought it was about discussing strategies on how to get Crawford to respond to your Tweets.
Then I entered and realized I had nothing to contribute.

[Azreal]

Man... When I saw this thread title I got all excited and thought it was about discussing strategies on how to get Crawford to respond to your Tweets.
Then I entered and realized I had nothing to contribute.

I am so sorry man.

I meant NPC Wizards and how to make them sound super intelligent with fun nonsense words. haha

[squab]

Use the word quantum a lot. "By changing the quantum dissonance of the aetherial vibrations you can replicate a eluvial ring and warp the trans-world fabric."

Basically just look for big, magic sounding buzzwords and use them. I'd love to play a caster that secretly has no idea how magic works so he just uses big buzz-words so people think he knows what he's talking about.

Aether. Quantum. Ether. Vibration. Hyper. Warp. Just string a bunch of buzzwords together.

[eastmabl]

Cast Skywrite.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Use the word quantum a lot. "By changing the quantum dissonance of the aetherial vibrations you can replicate a eluvial ring and warp the trans-world fabric."

Basically just look for big, magic sounding buzzwords and use them. I'd love to play a caster that secretly has no idea how magic works so he just uses big buzz-words so people think he knows what he's talking about.

Aether. Quantum. Ether. Vibration. Hyper. Warp. Just string a bunch of buzzwords together.

Yeah, that's about right. I also like to throw in "polarity" a lot. "Reverse the arcane polarity to obtain the inverse effect of the spell, it's really simple".

[Townopolis]

Two things I find useful are that laws and methodologies are often named after whoever discover/invents them, and people often enough will just refer to the law when trying to explain things. For example, the law of inertia is Newton's law (Newton's first law, to be precise). So you can say something like "maneuvering in space requires the expulsion of remass because of Newton's first law," which may not actually be accurate but sounds about right. The important part is really that you only reference the law.

Then there's this complicated concept, which we just call a "Mandlebrot Set. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)"

So, magic...

On the simpler side, you can explain why you can only cast one sixth level spell a day by just saying "because that would violate Mordenkainen's thirteenth law." You can explain how you're able to get multiple effects from the Glyph of Warding spell by just explaining that it "exploits Bigby's theory of contagion."

If you want to get more complex, start talking about how this law interacts with that theory, and how you can probably manipulate the confluences with a "recursive Tenser loop" or something.

Or you can use ducks. "It's like you've got a duck, right? But if you put that duck in a fire it'll be on fire, right? And a duck on fire isn't a duck anymore, it's roast duck, which is different, because it can't quack anymore. Are you following me so far? So you take the quack, and you set it aside. Then you put the duck in the fire and just keep putting the duck out. Out of fire, I mean, you aren't putting... anyways. The duck is in the fire, but you put the duck out, and then, when it's used to not being on fire, you give the quack back, and then you have a duck that's in fire but not on fire and is still a duck. Simple, really."

It's very important to make sure nobody can actually understand what you're talking about and then say "simple, really."

Edit: When wizards aren't talking about magic, I often just treat them as slightly unfocused normal people. Sometimes they are slightly unfocused curmudgeons.

[squab]

Two things I find useful are that laws and methodologies are often named after whoever discover/invents them, and people often enough will just refer to the law when trying to explain things. For example, the law of inertia is Newton's law (Newton's first law, to be precise). So you can say something like "maneuvering in space requires the expulsion of remass because of Newton's first law," which may not actually be accurate but sounds about right. The important part is really that you only reference the law.

Then there's this complicated concept, which we just call a "Mandlebrot Set. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)"

So, magic...

On the simpler side, you can explain why you can only cast one sixth level spell a day by just saying "because that would violate Mordenkainen's thirteenth law." You can explain how you're able to get multiple effects from the Glyph of Warding spell by just explaining that it "exploits Bigby's theory of contagion."

If you want to get more complex, start talking about how this law interacts with that theory, and how you can probably manipulate the confluences with a "recursive Tenser loop" or something.

Or you can use ducks. "It's like you've got a duck, right? But if you put that duck in a fire it'll be on fire, right? And a duck on fire isn't a duck anymore, it's roast duck, which is different, because it can't quack anymore. Are you following me so far? So you take the quack, and you set it aside. Then you put the duck in the fire and just keep putting the duck out. Out of fire, I mean, you aren't putting... anyways. The duck is in the fire, but you put the duck out, and then, when it's used to not being on fire, you give the quack back, and then you have a duck that's in fire but not on fire and is still a duck. Simple, really."

It's very important to make sure nobody can actually understand what you're talking about and then say "simple, really."

Edit: When wizards aren't talking about magic, I often just treat them as slightly unfocused normal people. Sometimes they are slightly unfocused curmudgeons.

You've missed the point entirely. Does she, or does she not, weigh more then a duck?

[Kidbuu51]

I am so sorry man.

I meant NPC Wizards and how to make them sound super intelligent with fun nonsense words. haha

A thesaurus

[Slipperychicken]

Man... When I saw this thread title I got all excited and thought it was about discussing strategies on how to get Crawford to respond to your Tweets.
Then I entered and realized I had nothing to contribute.

I personally thought it would be a thread about interrogating wizards.

[MrStabby]

So one character (a wizard) in one of my games talked almost entirely in the passive and subjunctive:

"Were that question to be the kind of question to which I might consider giving an answer that that hypothetical answer would of course be the affirmative"

"Notwithstanding plans that might possibly have the benefits of being unforeseen by our opponents, were we to find ourselves in a position of conflict I would say that we would be unlikely to prevail to due the superior arcane power being held by our adversaries."

[Trasilor]

So one character (a wizard) in one of my games talked almost entirely in the passive and subjunctive:

"Were that question to be the kind of question to which I might consider giving an answer that that hypothetical answer would of course be the affirmative"

"Notwithstanding plans that might possibly have the benefits of being unforeseen by our opponents, were we to find ourselves in a position of conflict I would say that we would be unlikely to prevail to due the superior arcane power being held by our adversaries."

Now I want to make a wizard or sorcerer who speaks like Mojojo of Power Puff Girls. :smallbiggrin:

[TurboGhast]

Two things I find useful are that laws and methodologies are often named after whoever discover/invents them, and people often enough will just refer to the law when trying to explain things. For example, the law of inertia is Newton's law (Newton's first law, to be precise). So you can say something like "maneuvering in space requires the expulsion of remass because of Newton's first law," which may not actually be accurate but sounds about right. The important part is really that you only reference the law.

Then there's this complicated concept, which we just call a "Mandlebrot Set. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)"

So, magic...

On the simpler side, you can explain why you can only cast one sixth level spell a day by just saying "because that would violate Mordenkainen's thirteenth law." You can explain how you're able to get multiple effects from the Glyph of Warding spell by just explaining that it "exploits Bigby's theory of contagion."

If you want to get more complex, start talking about how this law interacts with that theory, and how you can probably manipulate the confluences with a "recursive Tenser loop" or something.

Or you can use ducks. "It's like you've got a duck, right? But if you put that duck in a fire it'll be on fire, right? And a duck on fire isn't a duck anymore, it's roast duck, which is different, because it can't quack anymore. Are you following me so far? So you take the quack, and you set it aside. Then you put the duck in the fire and just keep putting the duck out. Out of fire, I mean, you aren't putting... anyways. The duck is in the fire, but you put the duck out, and then, when it's used to not being on fire, you give the quack back, and then you have a duck that's in fire but not on fire and is still a duck. Simple, really."

It's very important to make sure nobody can actually understand what you're talking about and then say "simple, really."

Edit: When wizards aren't talking about magic, I often just treat them as slightly unfocused normal people. Sometimes they are slightly unfocused curmudgeons.


Yeah, that's about right. I also like to throw in "polarity" a lot. "Reverse the arcane polarity to obtain the inverse effect of the spell, it's really simple".

Babbling on as if you know more than you have actually established is common tactic of using those magibabble. Another useful trick is talking fast, to make it just a little less comprehensible.

[VoxRationis]

Magicians don't reveal their secrets. An air of mystery is important to maintaining the difference between the learned and the uninitiated. A wizard will almost never mention the minutiae or mechanics of their craft, speaking only in archaic, vague airs.

[Slipperychicken]

Magicians don't reveal their secrets. An air of mystery is important to maintaining the difference between the learned and the uninitiated. A wizard will almost never mention the minutiae or mechanics of their craft, speaking only in archaic, vague airs.

They are also known to reply to such inquiries with retorts like "It's magic, I don't gotta explain ****!". There are so few documented instances of a wizard speaking in detail about his craft, and so little consistency between accounts, that scholars have increasingly begun to question whether the wizards themselves understand the nature of magic at all. Some more radical scholars have put forward the idea that wizards' magic is derived from obscurity itself (hence the name Arcane), rather than any clear magical rules. This suggests that wizards increase their power by convincing others that a set of clear, complicated, and largely-unknown rules govern their magic, even when this is obviously not the case. If true, the proliferation of such findings has the potential to destroy the art of wizardry as we know it.

[KorvinStarmast]

If true, the proliferation of such findings has the potential to destroy the art of wizardry as we know it.
There's an app for that now. :smallwink:

[rollingForInit]

Referencing arcane book titles is a good place to start.

(spoken in your fastest voice, without a break) "Oh, if you want to know that you really should read The Codex of Lower Lore, by Danarius Lanthel. He's got quite some outrageous ideas, like the connection between fiendish blood and the celestial planes. If you really want to fully understand it, you ought to start with Harrax's Theory on Hellfire Gates, which covers the basics of hellish travels, and then move on to The Infernal Manuscript, which is a bit outdated but is widely referenced. Of course you can never go wrong with Jaeneryth's Treatise on the Relations between Demons, Devils and Yugoloths, and if you really want to dig into planar travel, there's always Interpreting the Observations from Feluciano's Astral Travels, from the University of Caldwich. Actually, the High Wizard there recently wrote a book called Extrapolating the Effects of Human-Celestial Transmogrification, which really makes a fascinating case for those celestial-fiendish relations. But if you really only want to know about summoning demons, there's always Sszaargrakltorikf's Demonomancy, but it's quite dull, the old reptile really has no sense of humour."

[JellyPooga]

Non-Wizard: "Hey, let's talk about magic!"
*Wizard hands non-Wizard a book on magic theory*
Wizard: "Read this, then come back and we'll talk"
*Non-Wizard goes away, reads book, comes back*
"Ok, I've read that book. It was kinda boring"
Wizard: "Right, now read this one"
*Wizard hands non-Wizard another book on magic theory*
Non-Wizard: "When are we going to talk about magic though?"
Wizard: "When you can comprehend the basics"
Non-Wizard: "When will that be?"
Wizard: "When you've read that book and a dozen more like it"
Non-Wizard: "Oh...never mind then"

[HockeyPokeyBard]

Or you can use ducks. "It's like you've got a duck, right? But if you put that duck in a fire it'll be on fire, right? And a duck on fire isn't a duck anymore, it's roast duck, which is different, because it can't quack anymore. Are you following me so far? So you take the quack, and you set it aside. Then you put the duck in the fire and just keep putting the duck out. Out of fire, I mean, you aren't putting... anyways. The duck is in the fire, but you put the duck out, and then, when it's used to not being on fire, you give the quack back, and then you have a duck that's in fire but not on fire and is still a duck. Simple, really."

It's very important to make sure nobody can actually understand what you're talking about and then say "simple, really."


You are my favorite. This is my favorite. That is all.

[Steampunkette]

Proper Nouns.

"According Al-Zaha's commentaries on the work of Mordenkainen as relates to the temporal displacement of his Magnificent Mansion, which was by the way modeled on the demiplane designs of Croman the Destructinator of Sokynat, all we have to do is find and strike the structural weakpoint and we'll be able to break the egg."

[PoeticDwarf]

What's your favorite way to make your NPC Wizard talk about magic?

Like with weird wizard jargon that's hard to follow.

A gnome, with a music box, he explains everything with its box.