General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Really... I like both types. I also love the concept of magic as something a bit more... but I hate magic being an exact qualified equal to science.
I want games where scientific thinkers are learning how to screw around with mystic energies... but I don't just want some silly magitech four-wheeled combustion engine equipped artifice. I want poor spellcasters being blitzed with gas by rogues, stumbling bumbling and unable to cast.
I want mages working on great works, creating entire cities which shift through space and time as is needed through the actions of a thousand casters settling into grand holdings and sacrificing their power to protect the nation. I want to see what happens when spell X is used beyond its normal scope and tested out. I want mishaps, utter failures, and spectacular successes.
I also want a smart group of peasants who can tear that soft-bodied aristocratic hexslinger from heel to head through using their old wise woman's magic. Magic should follow rules, but still be dangerous, mystic, alluring, and hazardous to your health.
Sorcerers aren't necessarily fools.. they just use their own way of doing things. As would a swordmage, or a favored soul, or a cleric. Magic is the manipulation of forces... and that manipulation should be pretty damned unique to each person unless they have received very similar tutelage.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
Yeah, I struggle with this question often. I tend to prefer "natural" magic to "scientific" magic... but I also prefer high-powered campaigns to low-powered campaigns. And its very difficult to run a natural, high-powered campaign without it coming off as something like DBZ.
So I've found "scientific" magic to be an evil necessity in most of my campaign settings.
A fighter may or may not know the metallurgy behind his sword, a monk probably doesn't know the anatomy of his arm when he punches (especially concepts like nerve impulses).
A Wizard is an academic character, one that gains power through study and mental devotion. They know how their magic works, that is how it works for them.
A Sorcerer has magic work for them by reflex and intuition. Casting Magic Missile for them comes as naturally as swinging a sword or throwing a punch does for a fighter. When they can't cast anymore because they have run out of spell slots, they know they are spiritually/mentally exhausted for the day and need to rest, but they still know how to do it just as a monk or fighter that knows how to fight but their body is exhausted.
However, a Sorcerer with ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) probably has an understanding of some of the theory behind the spells they cast, but they don't need that to cast their magic.
Want real magic without the feel of scientific experimentation or rigid spell lines? Want magic users who are powerful without being stupidly overpowered or taking up every other character's space? Want a style of magic that's all about your inner willpower reaching into the world and saying "No, you're going to do what I want you to do" instead of some old codger who just sits behind a dusty book all day, reading the newest issue of Magic Weekly?
Man, the answer is really obvious, at least to me. Use psionics!
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
What're their hang ups? 3.5 psionics, power points and whatnot, is a pretty easy system to get, in my opinion.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
You cannot allow players to make use of magic without demystifying it due to the need to codify such access into the rules of the game. Therefore, mysterious magic requires that access to it be through NPCs and nothing else.
I respectfully disagree...to a point. That is to say, you're right that a certain amount of codification is necessary to have effective rules for adjudicating magic for players. But you can still have an air of mystery and chaos.
For example, a spellcaster like the modified Spellfire Channeller I mentioned previously would be pretty free-form in general, and would have the ability to use Spellcraft to mimic the effects of spells (herinafter referred to as "spellshaping").
But since successes in spellshaping would be determined by rolls against a DC (at least in 3.X), your system could include allowances for better-than-expected results for "critically successful" rolls, and unexpected results for "critical failures"- perhaps based on the chart for the Wand of Wonder or some such.
Quote:
What're their hang ups? 3.5 psionics, power points and whatnot, is a pretty easy system to get, in my opinion.
Personally, I like psionics, but I'm virtually the only one in my group.
Speaking only for the guys in my group, most of them dislike psionics because of the flavor, not the mechanics.
Gee, my late-night post made for philosophical angles!
I like most of what has been said here and agree with most of it - and that's the problem. Magic can take many different forms, all valid, but doing this in a game creates a very confused setting.
I liked how Sorcerers and Wizards worked in 3.5 - that they had the same spells but different methods for using them. In 4.0, we have three degrees (well, we had in 3.5 at the end, but I never used Warlocks in 3.5).
Wizards, Swordmages and Arcanists: Int-based, understand their magic
Sorcerers and Bards: Cha based, instinctual magic. Bards do have Int as a possible secondary attribute.
Warlocks: Has magic as an external gift, Cha or Con based but with Int secondary.
In 3.5 most builds could work on either concept. As 4.0 is now my favored version of DnD, I want this to work there too. I'd like to have a wizardly arcane striker and leader and a spontaneous arcane controller and defender. These could be just reskinning, but reskinning is harder to do in 4.0 than it was in 3.5.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
I liked how Sorcerers and Wizards worked in 3.5 - that they had the same spells but different methods for using them. In 4.0, we have three degrees (well, we had in 3.5 at the end, but I never used Warlocks in 3.5).
Actually, even setting aside divine casters and psionic manifesters, we had several methods of spellcasting in 3.5.
1) Vancian Wizards (PHB)
2) Vancian Sorcerers (PHB)
3) Warlocks (CompMage)
4) Binders (ToM)
5) Shadowmages (ToM)
6) Truenamers (ToM)
7) Artificers (Eb)
8) Vitality point system Wizards (UA)
9) Vitality point system Sorcerers (UA)
10) Meldshapers (MoI)
And I'm sure I missed someone along the way, like some kind of Wild Mage, Runecasters, etc., plus classes (Spellfire Wielder, Spellswords, Spellthieves) and feats (Draconic Breath, Infernal Shout) that altered the way spell energy could be acquired, used or channeled.
You cannot allow players to make use of magic without demystifying it due to the need to codify such access into the rules of the game. Therefore, mysterious magic requires that access to it be through NPCs and nothing else.
Try playing Sorcerer.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Personally, I like psionics, but I'm virtually the only one in my group.
Speaking only for the guys in my group, most of them dislike psionics because of the flavor, not the mechanics.
While I want to ask what their big issue with the flavor is, I've found most people who hate it tend to take the approch of hating psionics first, finding reasons in the fluff to hate it second, if simply because the flavor of psionics can be turned to support just about any style of character you want.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
What're their hang ups? 3.5 psionics, power points and whatnot, is a pretty easy system to get, in my opinion.
1) They have bad memories from less well-balanced versions of psionics, which colours their views of all psionics.
2) They think it is science-fiction, not fantasy.
3) They think it is too similar to regular magic and want psionics to be really different.
(It is not the mere fact that it is a point-based system, as they seem to like point-based systems like Elements of Magic, or even modifications of stuff in Unearthed Arcana).
It is a brick wall. I dream of someday getting a book called "Gem Magic" that completely reskins psionics while still looking like a Game Book (tm). Maybe they would play it for a while and not notice. So long as I never, ever, told them they were using psionics rules.
__________________ 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end.
Definately mysterious. 'Real' spellcasters in my campaign (as opposed to alchemists and the like) can best be thought of as being like Alma from F.E.A.R.- very powerful, very dangerous and not fully in control of their own will (if fact I use the Dragon from the MM as a template for when the players fight them).
we want both types to exist side by side but we prefer more intuitive systems like 3e sorcerer or psionics to vancian magic, regardless of flavour or key ability score.
I also like different types of magic to differ in their effects rather than casting mechanics (basically a unified system sort of like 4e, but flexible and intuitive) Each "school" should have its own spell list without too much overlap. An alchemist with a scientific approach to magic shouldn't be able to charm people like an enchanter. Spells involving precise rituals or prayers should have more reliable (if less powerful) effects than wild magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle_Man
1) They have bad memories from less well-balanced versions of psionics, which colours their views of all psionics.
2) They think it is science-fiction, not fantasy.
3) They think it is too similar to regular magic and want psionics to be really different.
(It is not the mere fact that it is a point-based system, as they seem to like point-based systems like Elements of Magic, or even modifications of stuff in Unearthed Arcana).
It is a brick wall. I dream of someday getting a book called "Gem Magic" that completely reskins psionics while still looking like a Game Book (tm). Maybe they would play it for a while and not notice. So long as I never, ever, told them they were using psionics rules.
I like the 3.5 point system a lot but also think psionics should simply be folded into magic. Alternate names like "soul magic" (well... something better) would help too. "Psionics" does sound too sci-fi.
__________________
_ Ceterum censeo the encounter/daily power system is an unholy blight upon D&Ddom
5e can't come soon enough
Last edited by lutecius; 22nd June 2009 at 02:00 AM..
"If you die first, we're splitting up your gear" - SkidAce
"Just because you don't like it, don't understand it, and can't explain it, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. "- Celebrim
You know, I never saw the psionics = sci-fi thing. Using the power of your mind to alter the world around you...I don't see how that involves THE FUTURE! in any way. Maybe it's something from before my time?
Also, I must admit that I laughed when I saw the second complaint of "Psionics are too sci-fi, they need to be more traditional!" right before "Psionics are too similar to traditional magic, they need to be more different!" And psionics? Overpowered? Hah! Tell that to the divine or arcane caster!
Yeagh. Like I said, the biggest problem most people have with psionics is that they already decided they're going to dislike it. You can't really argue with or convince someone who made up their mind before making their arguments to support them.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
While I want to ask what their big issue with the flavor is, I've found most people who hate it tend to take the approch of hating psionics first, finding reasons in the fluff to hate it second, if simply because the flavor of psionics can be turned to support just about any style of character you want.
Slight tangent, but this statement would also be true if you replaced "psionics" with almost anything, including "healing surges", "martial daily powers" and "4e".
While I want to ask what their big issue with the flavor is, I've found most people who hate it tend to take the approch of hating psionics first, finding reasons in the fluff to hate it second, if simply because the flavor of psionics can be turned to support just about any style of character you want.
While there is some truth to the assertion that part of it is a hangover from previous editions' psi systems, the things that remain constant in their opposition are:
1) Dislike of the terminology. Despite discussions of the actual Greek or Latinate meanings and origins of the words, they feel that many of the terms are too modern/futuristic, thus disrupting their suspension of disbelief.
2) An invulnerable linking of psi to sci-fi. While it is true there are fantasy settings that do contain psi, they are the minority, and few, if any, of them have read those series (much less enjoyed them). To them, Psi is indelibly linked to something they feel doesn't belong in their FRPGS.
And yes, many of them are gamers of enough experience to have played in modules like S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks- and some have. Either it wasn't enough to change their opinion, or it ossified their dislike of melding fantasy & sci-fi.
Slight tangent, but this statement would also be true if you replaced "psionics" with almost anything, including "healing surges", "martial daily powers" and "4e".
That statement could be true about anything that human beings have ever disliked in the history of mankind.
It could also be untrue ;p
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Exactly the kind of stuff my buddies say, even though:
1) "Psi" is a modern (approx. 1942) shortening of "Psychic", a word that shows up no later than the 1600s.
2) "ics" is a suffix that forms nouns referring to fields of knowledge or practice.
IOW, but for the abbreviation, the name & concept of mentalists of some kind goes back far enough into the RW timeline that would mesh nicely with D&D's "tech level."
And the suffix that makes it into a study or field of knowledge is just as old, and the word could have easily had "-(o)logy" or "(o)sophy" instead.
Basically, it boils down to people having "psionophobia."
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
