This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.  (Read 14788 times)

estar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10065
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2021, 11:03:12 AM »
Five pages of this and nobody used this meme?!
Interesting that you brought that up. As I find the issues isn't what you can do with magic or why you can do it. But rather how the larger setting and its characters are roleplayed in response to how magic is described.

To take an extreme example, a 1st level spells that can create copious amount of gold. Yet the setting is still presented as a fantasy pseudo-medieval culture with a economy based on traditional gold & silver coins.

Something less clear cut, the fact that in Runequest 2nd edition everybody has a decent shot at learning a spell or two. Which is fine for Glorantha but if used another setting that will have to be accounted for in how things are roleplayed or the result will be "off".

Note accounting for the effects of magic doesn't mean that it full potential comes into play for the setting. A campaign can be set in the time period where folks have progressed with magic but haven't figure out all of its implication as obvious they are to a 21st century mindset.

Technological progress often involves ideas as well as materials, tools, and machines. For example one has to have an idea of how to organize a factory in order to have a factory.



« Last Edit: August 04, 2021, 11:06:01 AM by estar »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2021, 11:06:20 AM »
Hi, SonTodoGato. I wrote an old essay on this a while ago that digs into a bunch of points. It's here.

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html

There's a huge difference between historical magic like soothsaying and spirit quests; and the flashy spells of 20th century fantasy fiction. Either can work fine in a game, but they're mutually exclusive. I've had some fun games with historical-like magic, but I've also had many fun games emulating modern fantasy fiction.

I loved your article. Nice to know the person who wrote it. I agree with many points of it, and think people would learn a lot from it

My point of view is; some mysteries are better left unsolved. And that includes the master as well. Don't bother finding a rationale or a system that's fair; magic may follow a series of patters or rules, yes, but allow an occasional exception if you feel like. How do genies fulfill wishes? Who knows. How do lucky charms give you good fortune? They just do. Don't bother explaining it to your players, they don't care. And don't bother explaining it to yourself; you don't need to. Let their imaginations fill the gaps and draw the lines.

Also: Why can't you just have both? A wizard can read the runes but also cast a fireball, levitate or hurl lightning bolts around. Why not? Just different types of spells. If you keep it rare and mysterious, I don't see how that would break immersion.

OK, fair enough. On the last point, one can have both historical-style magic and modern-fantasy-style magic in a game -- but they're still distinct. It's a bit like having both laser guns and fireballs in the same game. It can be cool to mix scifi and fantasy - I know groups have had a lot of fun with Expedition to Barrier Peaks. But putting everything isn't necessarily the best of both worlds. It's still fun to play just fantasy or just scifi. I personally haven't mixed the two, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

As for not coming up with any rationale or background for magic... That's fine as a preference, but what I'll argue is that it doesn't lead to magic feeling mysterious. Like the cartoon meme shows... if a genie shows up to give Bugs Bunny wishes, that's unexplained - but it doesn't feel mysterious. The feeling of mystery comes from when it seems like there is a hidden pattern that isn't yet seen.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2021, 04:51:02 PM »
I'm not sure why this topic is confusing to anyone.

If they were not confused before....

There's a reason everyone doesn't run around casting spells.

And we will never be able to find out why that is.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2021, 06:30:03 PM »
I think the point is taken - not knowing how something works doesn't make it magic.  Nor does it really make something feel like magic.

Feels like magic seems like such a millennial conceit.

Maybe this type of magic would work better in a story game which does not use mechanics, just the player or gm describing the cool things that their magic does.


Feelings are millennial bullshit am i rite xDDD

Keep it simple. That's my point. Don't bother making up a whole rationale as to how magic works, or a complex, well-thought-out system. Keep it balanced, of course; nothing too exaggerated. Maybe throw a few rules here and there, but keep it mind that magic works in mysterious ways.

I've been prisoner of this mindset for quite some time; I couldn't believe any system that didn't have mana work like a physical force and follow certain rules. I ended up enjoying folk magic a lot more.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2021, 08:40:48 PM »
I think the point is taken - not knowing how something works doesn't make it magic.  Nor does it really make something feel like magic.

Feels like magic seems like such a millennial conceit.

Maybe this type of magic would work better in a story game which does not use mechanics, just the player or gm describing the cool things that their magic does.


Feelings are millennial bullshit am i rite xDDD

Keep it simple. That's my point. Don't bother making up a whole rationale as to how magic works, or a complex, well-thought-out system. Keep it balanced, of course; nothing too exaggerated. Maybe throw a few rules here and there, but keep it mind that magic works in mysterious ways.

I've been prisoner of this mindset for quite some time; I couldn't believe any system that didn't have mana work like a physical force and follow certain rules. I ended up enjoying folk magic a lot more.
Thinking feelings trump reason or can change the nature of reality is LEFTIST bullshit (I know plenty of millennials who are hard workers just trying to raise their families, its just a tiny, but very vocal, minority of Leftist retards who’ve been indulged by their Leftist Boomer parents and never had to endure an ounce of responsibility in their empty lives who are the problem).

In terms of magic, I think the main issue is you’re trying to weld elements of magic that work in stories onto roleplaying games when the two are entirely different media and as anyone who’s studied media and storytelling knows, what works in one medium can fall flat in another (ex. the internal monologue that works fantastically in written stories often falls flat when trying to use the device in film or television because show don’t tell is such a huge part of effective storytelling in a visual medium and derailing/pausing scenes so the action doesn’t outrun having to speak the protagonist’s thoughts out loud).

What you’re describing is basically what’s known in writing as a “soft” magic system. They are great at evoking wonder, but also can’t be effectively used to resolve the central problem of a story without destroying all tension. In stories where the hero gains what is effectively soft magic (ex. Neo at the end of the Matrix), the key conflict is generally the hero proving themselves worthy of the power... the climax is them proving worthy and every bit of awesome they pull off after that is basically just catharsis; the bad guy is now fucked, everyone in the audience knows the bad guy is now fucked, and the fun is watching the villain get his well deserved ass kicking.

The rule in fiction is that the degree to which magic can can be used to solve the plot is directly proportional to how well understood and causal the magic is. Disney’s Aladdin is allowed to use trickery and the near limitless soft magic of the genie to defeat Jafar precisely because he uses one of the few actually defined rules of genie magic in the film. Systems with very hard magic (ex. Avatar the Last Airbender) can use their magic to directly solve problems in the plot precisely because the audience understands its limits so clever exploitation of the rules doesn’t feel like a cheat.

So what does this have to do with RPGs? Because the medium of RPGs is all about using defined rules and tools to solve problems and so the only satisfying way you can use magic in that medium is in accord with knowable/defined rules. Otherwise you’re not actually playing a game, you’re just telling a cooperative story and probably a pretty lousy one because soft undefined magic solving your problem just isn’t narratively satisfying.

The closest I’ve seen to a functional soft magic system in an RPG is Mage the Ascension. It requires a LOT of GM adjudication to make the magic system function and is also basically woke garbage because “believing hard enough changes reality” is basically the same logic as “a man who believes they’re a woman hard enough becomes a woman.”

TL;DR the medium that is RPGs requires hard magic systems because RPGs are first and foremost collections of rules used to take action within a fictional setting. Anything truly soft magic isn’t defined by rules and so can only exist as a story element not a game element.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2021, 09:23:59 PM »
Quote
and is also basically woke garbage because “believing hard enough changes reality” is basically the same logic

Not really - because Believing Hard in Ascencion is quantifiable skill that allows you to change reality :P

Quote
Because the medium of RPGs is all about using defined rules and tools to solve problems

That's quite narrow definition - unless you define problem extremely widely.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2021, 09:26:48 PM by Wrath of God »
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2021, 10:32:44 AM »
Quote
and is also basically woke garbage because “believing hard enough changes reality” is basically the same logic

Not really - because Believing Hard in Ascencion is quantifiable skill that allows you to change reality :P

Quote
Because the medium of RPGs is all about using defined rules and tools to solve problems

That's quite narrow definition - unless you define problem extremely widely.
Mage the Ascension is literally, "if you believe it hard enough you can make it real in defiance of all natural laws." That is precise mindset pushed by the lunatics who say Men can be Women if they believe they are. Mage is Woke wish fulfilment where they can change reality to meet whatever their whims of the day happen to be and the villains are caricatures of the Right Wing; oppressors who wish to impose an objective reality that will keep them from being able to be woman or a sea turtle or whatever. The latest Mage book literally paints it as conservatives are trying to oppress and ruin the world for their own gain and good Mages must be good transgendered woke Leftards and oppose them by believing really hard; because Utopia WILL come if you just kill enough of the unbelievers in it.

Its not that I problem too widely, its that I'm using it in terms of the definition "a question to be considered, solved, or answered."

That's what 99% of RPGs are. The GM describes the situation and then asks "what do you do?" and your answer to that is based on the system mechanics/tools available to them. A normal human can't say in answer to "there's a chasm between you and where you want to go. What do you do?" "I flap my wings and fly" because the rules say normal humans don't have wings and can't fly.

In a fictional story how the protagonist achieves their goal is a problem to be solved (if it weren't there wouldn't be much of a story; "I was hungry so I got food out of the fridge" isn't a very compelling narrative). Everything in an RPG is centered around problems; either setting them up, what you're doing to overcome them, or what happens after you do solve them. A maze is a problem, a trap is a problem, a hostile encounter is a problem, persuading the king is a problem.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2021, 12:53:45 PM »
So what does this have to do with RPGs? Because the medium of RPGs is all about using defined rules and tools to solve problems and so the only satisfying way you can use magic in that medium is in accord with knowable/defined rules. Otherwise you’re not actually playing a game, you’re just telling a cooperative story and probably a pretty lousy one because soft undefined magic solving your problem just isn’t narratively satisfying.

The closest I’ve seen to a functional soft magic system in an RPG is Mage the Ascension. It requires a LOT of GM adjudication to make the magic system function and is also basically woke garbage because “believing hard enough changes reality” is basically the same logic as “a man who believes they’re a woman hard enough becomes a woman.”

TL;DR the medium that is RPGs requires hard magic systems because RPGs are first and foremost collections of rules used to take action within a fictional setting. Anything truly soft magic isn’t defined by rules and so can only exist as a story element not a game element.

According to this logic, Free Kriegspiel is just storytelling, which I think is a flawed definition. When I played in old-school D&D convention tournaments back in the 1980s, most of the decisions were *not* rules-manipulation. Much of it was things like puzzle-solving, and other non-rules-based decisions - more like Choose Your Own Adventure than a tactical board game. Traditional RPGs have a lot of room for non-rule-based challenges like role-played negotiation, riddles and puzzles, solving mysteries, and creative solutions to traps.

I agree that Mage: The Ascension is poorly defined and prioritizes storytelling -- but that vs D&D aren't the only choices.

The simplest example of non-scientific magic is spirit magic, where magic is handled as role-played interaction and negotiation with NPC spirits. A lot of old-school, non-storytelling games handle interaction with NPCs as pure role-play rather than by dice-rolling rules. There are other possibilities as well. In my Water-uphill World campaign, I represented magic as a dungeon the PCs would go to in their minds. Based on where they went and challenges passed, they gained various magical abilities. It was pretty clearly defined in exactly the same way that a tricks-and-traps dungeons is  (as opposed to a tactical combat board game dungeon).

In terms of published rules, I think GURPS Voodoo is one of the best examples of less scientific RPG magic, especially because it highlights interaction with spirits as one of the key points.

Eric Diaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
    • http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #68 on: August 05, 2021, 04:29:29 PM »
Well... not sure.

First, how is this "new school'? How is O&D's vancian magic - you've got two first level spell and one second level spell and they always work similarly etc. - any better?

Second, I LIKE random magic (on the veio of DCC RPG etc.)... but I think it is mostly a matter of taste. And it is not common in most literature - except Lieber and occasionally Vance (but rare in D&D). Gandalf would never cast a fireballs and see it occasionally explode in his own face. Magic does not "fail" often; when it does, there is a rational reason (maybe Arioch just doesn't want to answer at this time).

Third, there are concrete rules to hitting someone with your sword... because we are playing this game. Magic-users need rules too.

Fourth, eh, there is plenty of sci-fi (or sci-fi looking) stuff in OD&D.

I think the easiest way to make magic "magical" when you NEED rules is making these rules somewhat ARBITRARY (when you resurrect someone, he might reincarnate in a duck).

Same thing works for deities, BTW. 5e has a spell where two married people get a +2 bonus to AC for a while after marriage. I'd prefer something like - your marriage is official in your deities' eyes. So you might gain entrance to Hades to rescue her soul, etc. No mechanic bonuses, just a narrative tool.
Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2021, 12:30:13 PM »
Well... not sure.

First, how is this "new school'? How is O&D's vancian magic - you've got two first level spell and one second level spell and they always work similarly etc. - any better?

Second, I LIKE random magic (on the veio of DCC RPG etc.)... but I think it is mostly a matter of taste. And it is not common in most literature - except Lieber and occasionally Vance (but rare in D&D). Gandalf would never cast a fireballs and see it occasionally explode in his own face. Magic does not "fail" often; when it does, there is a rational reason (maybe Arioch just doesn't want to answer at this time).

Third, there are concrete rules to hitting someone with your sword... because we are playing this game. Magic-users need rules too.

Fourth, eh, there is plenty of sci-fi (or sci-fi looking) stuff in OD&D.

I think the easiest way to make magic "magical" when you NEED rules is making these rules somewhat ARBITRARY (when you resurrect someone, he might reincarnate in a duck).



My point is not just about mechanics; that's addition. We can work the mechanics out just fine.

People just have different paradigms as to how we imagine magic. One group treats it as a superstition, whose means and inner workings are beyond our reach or appear to work on a more symbolic aspect rather than physical. In this worldview magic is rare and obscure and only a few study it. This does not mean random and non-sensical, it just simply means it works in mysterious ways which we have not (and probably will never) decipher.

The other one treats magic as an energy or force of nature which can be understood, measured and even harnessed by machines, thus turning it into a science rather than something supernatural. It can be openly learned at colleges of wizards, it can power machines, it's simply shooting beams of energy or having levitating books.

My point is that the first view keeps magic more special than the second one. If magic is so ubiquitous, people get used to it and take it for granted. If magic is rare and non-physical, players are dealing with forces outside of their comprehension.

Examples of "natural" magic

A magic-powered machine, magic weapons, lighting up a city with "magic", shooting beams, "storing" magic inside a glowing pink crystal, teleporters, a healing spell which is bright green light; basically, magic is the fantasy equivalent of electricity. It is an energy that can be converted into other forms of energy under a certain kind of replicable conditions (see Eberron, Magitek, etc.). Having different "schools" of magic (thaumaturgy, conjuration, change, control, entropy, etc.) is part of this as well

Examples of superstitious magic

Seeing the face of your soulmate in a mirror while backwards walking up a staircase, a magical sword which makes you invincible, a good luck charm, getting lost in the woods makes you end up in the realm of the fairies, a voodoo doll, a cup that shatters upon "hearing" a lie, a statue that kills all the virgins who touch it, a man turning into a wolf on Fridays, etc.

In these cases, there is no physical, natural means through which magic works; it's simply a ritual or objects which causes an effect through means unknown. It works more on a subjective and symbolic field rather than a physical, natural, observable phenomenon.

For natural magic, vampires are killed by UV light. For superstitious magic, it is never explained but it is implied that they hate the brightness of the sun because it is the light of good and they are evil creatures of the night.

Quote
Same thing works for deities, BTW. 5e has a spell where two married people get a +2 bonus to AC for a while after marriage. I'd prefer something like - your marriage is official in your deities' eyes. So you might gain entrance to Hades to rescue her soul, etc. No mechanic bonuses, just a narrative tool.

You idea is far better. Instead of being a mechanic, it has meaning. I guess we coincide on this; making magic part of the "story" rather then a mechanic.

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2021, 12:39:30 PM »
Thinking feelings trump reason or can change the nature of reality is LEFTIST bullshit (I know plenty of millennials who are hard workers just trying to raise their families, its just a tiny, but very vocal, minority of Leftist retards who’ve been indulged by their Leftist Boomer parents and never had to endure an ounce of responsibility in their empty lives who are the problem).

In terms of magic, I think the main issue is you’re trying to weld elements of magic that work in stories onto roleplaying games when the two are entirely different media and as anyone who’s studied media and storytelling knows, what works in one medium can fall flat in another (ex. the internal monologue that works fantastically in written stories often falls flat when trying to use the device in film or television because show don’t tell is such a huge part of effective storytelling in a visual medium and derailing/pausing scenes so the action doesn’t outrun having to speak the protagonist’s thoughts out loud).

What you’re describing is basically what’s known in writing as a “soft” magic system. They are great at evoking wonder, but also can’t be effectively used to resolve the central problem of a story without destroying all tension. In stories where the hero gains what is effectively soft magic (ex. Neo at the end of the Matrix), the key conflict is generally the hero proving themselves worthy of the power... the climax is them proving worthy and every bit of awesome they pull off after that is basically just catharsis; the bad guy is now fucked, everyone in the audience knows the bad guy is now fucked, and the fun is watching the villain get his well deserved ass kicking.

The rule in fiction is that the degree to which magic can can be used to solve the plot is directly proportional to how well understood and causal the magic is. Disney’s Aladdin is allowed to use trickery and the near limitless soft magic of the genie to defeat Jafar precisely because he uses one of the few actually defined rules of genie magic in the film. Systems with very hard magic (ex. Avatar the Last Airbender) can use their magic to directly solve problems in the plot precisely because the audience understands its limits so clever exploitation of the rules doesn’t feel like a cheat.

So what does this have to do with RPGs? Because the medium of RPGs is all about using defined rules and tools to solve problems and so the only satisfying way you can use magic in that medium is in accord with knowable/defined rules. Otherwise you’re not actually playing a game, you’re just telling a cooperative story and probably a pretty lousy one because soft undefined magic solving your problem just isn’t narratively satisfying.

The closest I’ve seen to a functional soft magic system in an RPG is Mage the Ascension. It requires a LOT of GM adjudication to make the magic system function and is also basically woke garbage because “believing hard enough changes reality” is basically the same logic as “a man who believes they’re a woman hard enough becomes a woman.”

TL;DR the medium that is RPGs requires hard magic systems because RPGs are first and foremost collections of rules used to take action within a fictional setting. Anything truly soft magic isn’t defined by rules and so can only exist as a story element not a game element.

Don't make this about politics. The idea of feelings over reason is old as fuck; at least from the 19th century in the form of romanticism.

Soft magic doesn't imply that there are no rules and anything goes. Here's my point as explained by myself:

Quote
People just have different paradigms as to how we imagine magic. One group treats it as a superstition, whose means and inner workings are beyond our reach or appear to work on a more symbolic aspect rather than physical. In this worldview magic is rare and obscure and only a few study it. This does not mean random and non-sensical, it just simply means it works in mysterious ways which we have not (and probably will never) decipher.

The other one treats magic as an energy or force of nature which can be understood, measured and even harnessed by machines, thus turning it into a science rather than something supernatural. It can be openly learned at colleges of wizards, it can power machines, it's simply shooting beams of energy or having levitating books.

My point is that the first view keeps magic more special than the second one. If magic is so ubiquitous, people get used to it and take it for granted. If magic is rare and non-physical, players are dealing with forces outside of their comprehension.

Examples of "natural" magic

A magic-powered machine, magic weapons, lighting up a city with "magic", shooting beams, "storing" magic inside a glowing pink crystal, teleporters, a healing spell which is bright green light; basically, magic is the fantasy equivalent of electricity. It is an energy that can be converted into other forms of energy under a certain kind of replicable conditions (see Eberron, Magitek, etc.). Having different "schools" of magic (thaumaturgy, conjuration, change, control, entropy, etc.) is part of this as well

Examples of superstitious magic

Seeing the face of your soulmate in a mirror while backwards walking up a staircase, a magical sword which makes you invincible, a good luck charm, getting lost in the woods makes you end up in the realm of the fairies, a voodoo doll, a cup that shatters upon "hearing" a lie, a statue that kills all the virgins who touch it, a man turning into a wolf on Fridays, etc.

In these cases, there is no physical, natural means through which magic works; it's simply a ritual or objects which causes an effect through means unknown. It works more on a subjective and symbolic field rather than a physical, natural, observable phenomenon.

For natural magic, vampires are killed by UV light. For superstitious magic, it is never explained but it is implied that they hate the brightness of the sun because it is the light of good and they are evil creatures of the night.

And if you think mechanics are a problem, there are plenty of games who pulled it off just fine; Call of Cthulhu and Aquelarre come to mind. You need the materials, components and ingredients to perform the ritual. Magic isn't a systematized, well understood, almost physical kind of thing, but a mysterious art, with rules, laws and requisites, yes, but the workings of which are beyond our knowledge. Not unlike how people thought of magic in real life. You don't expect practitioners to go around believing they go around shooting fireballs, but they spend time performing rituals while working with "energies", beings and "forces" which science cannot detect.

Habitual Gamer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • H
  • Posts: 130
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2021, 12:57:18 PM »
Mage the Ascension is literally, "if you believe it hard enough you can make it real in defiance of all natural laws."

Except there's more than just that at play.

Belief != Arete, which is the cap on your power.  And Marauders point to the idea that there needs to be some sort of Consensus, or else everything is chaos (with the Ascension War being over what Consensus will look like). 

Done right, Mage was an interesting look at what mundane reality was like, and how we shape and define (and lie to ourselves about) the world we share with others and the Truth this shared reality overlays. 

But really it was all trenchcoats and fireballs and steampunk over Jupiter in practice.

(Okay, I admit I haven't looked at the latest edition of Mage past realizing it didn't really fix any of the mechanical problems it had, and I'd already gutted and rebuilt the fluff.   It all just amounted to a reprint as far as I was concerned ("now with 90% new filler material!"  Yay?).)

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2021, 01:07:54 PM »
OK, fair enough. On the last point, one can have both historical-style magic and modern-fantasy-style magic in a game -- but they're still distinct. It's a bit like having both laser guns and fireballs in the same game. It can be cool to mix scifi and fantasy - I know groups have had a lot of fun with Expedition to Barrier Peaks. But putting everything isn't necessarily the best of both worlds. It's still fun to play just fantasy or just scifi. I personally haven't mixed the two, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

As for not coming up with any rationale or background for magic... That's fine as a preference, but what I'll argue is that it doesn't lead to magic feeling mysterious. Like the cartoon meme shows... if a genie shows up to give Bugs Bunny wishes, that's unexplained - but it doesn't feel mysterious. The feeling of mystery comes from when it seems like there is a hidden pattern that isn't yet seen.

I think the feeling of mystery comes from the answers not being known. That's how horror works. Fear of the unknown. Apart from that, things are special according to supply and demand. If the genie pops out a bottle and gives you a sportscar, you're right; it's not mysterious. If it's been trapped inside a sealed lamp, and when it comes out it in a cloud of puprle smoke grants you a wish that comes true at a price, then yes. It's all about flavour and how you manage supply, demand and information.

Here is the same situation, but according to two different worldviews: Going to a druid's hideout to steal a magical bowl

In one scenario, you end up having a stealth/action scene, in which one of the characters can shoot raybeams, the other can cast a spell to know how many hitpoints he has, and they all fight on pretty much equal terms, swinging +1 swords that have a 10% freezing effect, discharging magical crystals to get the necessary magic points and casting summoning spells straight out of Naruto. Once they get the magical bowl, the use it as some sort of technological artifact or mechanical boost and go on.

On the other hand, you have a party of people who are not flashy casters. Maybe there's one wizard, who has to concoct a potion to get visions in the fumes about the location or use tarot cards to get hints, and can spend a turn chanting the incantations to shoot a whirlwind of fire or summon a fire elemental to cast it for him. The warriors of the party can wield weapons that have been blessed by a local priest, but these weapons don't have a "+1" mechanical effect; they carry a blessing, which may prove useful against the undead. The druid may turn into a beast, wield a magical staff that paralyizes those who touch it or summon gusts of wind and thunder against them. They don't fight on equal terms; it's a war. There's an element of horror (because you don't know what you're up to) apart from stealth and action, and you can't count on magic spells as though they were ammunition. Magic works indirectly, through effects, and it requires a ritual or components, as opposed to just simply spending mana points for superpowers.

When they finally defeat him, he can cast a spell on his last breath, an old druidic curse, which causes one of the characters to get progressively older. When they get the magical bowl, they realize that it allows a person with a pure heart to get visions from the future. Rather than being a mechanical aid, it become more of a plot device.

As you can see there are no mechanics, no physical energy, no clear laws; just magic. We all know it has some implicit rules and limitations, but we don't find a physical explanation as to how it works its magic. We don't think in terms of mechanics. It's a legend.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2021, 02:55:16 PM »
On the other hand, you have a party of people who are not flashy casters. Maybe there's one wizard, who has to concoct a potion to get visions in the fumes about the location or use tarot cards to get hints, and can spend a turn chanting the incantations to shoot a whirlwind of fire or summon a fire elemental to cast it for him. The warriors of the party can wield weapons that have been blessed by a local priest, but these weapons don't have a "+1" mechanical effect; they carry a blessing, which may prove useful against the undead. The druid may turn into a beast, wield a magical staff that paralyizes those who touch it or summon gusts of wind and thunder against them. They don't fight on equal terms; it's a war. There's an element of horror (because you don't know what you're up to) apart from stealth and action, and you can't count on magic spells as though they were ammunition. Magic works indirectly, through effects, and it requires a ritual or components, as opposed to just simply spending mana points for superpowers.

When they finally defeat him, he can cast a spell on his last breath, an old druidic curse, which causes one of the characters to get progressively older. When they get the magical bowl, they realize that it allows a person with a pure heart to get visions from the future. Rather than being a mechanical aid, it become more of a plot device.

As you can see there are no mechanics, no physical energy, no clear laws; just magic. We all know it has some implicit rules and limitations, but we don't find a physical explanation as to how it works its magic. We don't think in terms of mechanics. It's a legend.

I highlighted what I think is the key landmine in this otherwise very-cool-sounding approach: in the context of a game, it doesn't matter how much roleplaying atmosphere and how much thinking-in-terms-of-legends you create in or attribute to the characters. The players are going to think in terms of mechanics, if not all the time, then inevitably at some critical point.

To take one example, consider the weapon which doesn't have a fixed +1 bonus, but "carr(ies) a blessing, which may be useful against the undead". Well, if it's useful against the undead, how is it useful?  Does it keep them from approaching the wielder?  If so, what's the radius of the protected area?  And if the blessing "may" be useful, under what conditions would it not be?  Against certain kinds of undead? On certain places of cursed ground? If the wielder's committed an action his religion deems sinful?  Either the answers to these questions are consistent, in which case I think they effectively amount to mechanical rules, or they are inconsistent, in which case they're heading straight for the inevitable clash of players disliking a GM-fiat ruling, especially if it disadvantages them or the GM contradicts himself about how the magic works because he's forgotten how it was applied last time.

In principle you can get the best of both worlds by making sure there are game-applicable mechanical rules and the GM knows and consistently applies them, as long as the PCs aren't allowed to start out knowing those rules. But there, again, I think one ultimately winds up with only one of two alternatives: either it's feasible (i.e. doesn't require excessive PC time, cost, or risk) for players to figure out those rules by experiment and analysis, or it isn't.  If it is feasible, then the mage-PC players are going to turn the game into a Rise of Sufficiently Analyzed Magic campaign (because again, players will expend effort on figuring out how to maximize their characters' effectiveness), which may not be to everyone's taste or interest; if it isn't feasible, then we have the GM-fiat problem again, compounded by the frustration of people who thought it was possible to figure out a solution and found out the hard way it wasn't.

Unexplained magic that's under no obligation to be consistent or quantified works much better in games where the PCs aren't allowed to wield it. But an available player action that can be mechanically effective in the game has to be consistent and quantified, at least to some degree, or it will either disrupt the game (if it's too powerful) or be abandoned (if it's too ineffective).
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

GriswaldTerrastone
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • BANNED
Re: How "new school", "scientific", "inauthentic" magic is ruining fantasy.
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2021, 04:08:31 PM »
In a way the entire problem here has to do with the question itself- does "scientific/new school/inauthentic magic" ruin fantasy?

First, what is meant by "fantasy?" In the "Conan" stories magic was weird and didn't seem to follow any logical reasoning- floating fruit in a globe, gold lines through killer mist- maybe this was meant to be totally apart from the swordsman-physical so it HAD to be weird, or maybe because magic went by an entirely different set of rules from anything normal- but no explanation for any of this was ever given. You just accepted it.

But in GAMING magic some sort of inner logic and scientific method must be followed, or you have chaos. By saying a magic-user MUST do X then Y with Z using THIS and moving like THAT so the result will be SUCH- the players know what move to make. You can think of it as an ultra-complex version of chess with some random elements tossed in.

I don't know and I don't care how Gandalf's magic works, only that it does. But in a game I need to know something about what it is and what it WILL do or why bother? I also don't know exactly how phasers, force shields, artificial gravity, and Dr. McCoy's medical gear work, and I don't care.


But if someone wants to make magic more scientific, complete with an "inner physics" about it, then why not? That can make a world more "real," more fun, since knowing these things can open up new possibilities. If magic needs "mana" the way a solar-panel vehicle needs sufficient light to work then you would value a map showing various areas and their mana levels- that concept alone can make for excellent world-building: in an area where mana is almost non-existent physical weapons and fighters are the way to go, but maybe things magic can supply are a problem- such as a disease only magic can cure. Is it possible to bring "mana supplies" into such areas? What about anti-mana, where physical things work even better (e.g. alchemy) but magic is out, period?

Another problem is that fans of one tend to oppose fans of the other, when in fact there is no conflict- fantasy and fiction are just that. Could an AD&D dragon weighing thousands of pounds and is a six-limbed vertebrate no less possibly fly on a non-magic world? No. But who cares?
I'm 55. My profile won't record this. It's only right younger members know how old I am.