Your Magical Preferences

[Aldarc]

It goes without saying that magic forms an integral part of the fantasy setting. But I am curious as to what preferences people have towards the nature of magic in your games and why. People certainly have their preferences and expectations regarding magic.

Do you prefer magic that is distinctly delineated by source (i.e., arcane vs. divine vs. psionic), or do you prefer singular unified magic systems? Do you prefer Vancian magic or some other spellcasting method? Is magic prevalent or rare? Is it easily accessible to learn or is it a painstaking enterprise? Is it earth-shattering or subtle? Is it benign or malignant? Is magic metaphysically explainable or is it utterly mysterious? Is magic treated as a technological tool or as a chaotic force? How do magic-users view magic? How do non-magic-users view magic? Or perhaps it falls somewhere between all these or in other aspects that I did not include.

In short, how do you prefer magic to exist in your games?

 

[Umbran]

I don't think in terms of having one, single preference.

Pretty much every approach to magic has strengths and weaknesses. I figure out what I want for a particular campaign feel, and choose my magic accordingly.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I prefer it to be somewhat medium rare.

Not quite monty haul, but not quite scarce. Basically it is around enough so it is common knowledge, but not quite so much of it that people become desensitized to it and take it for granted.

Magic should be a wondrous thing, nothing to be taken for granted.

If that makes any sense to you.

But for specific answers, I prefer the arcane and divine scheme in rpgs. I also love psionics. To me, arcane magic means the manipulation of planetary or universal energies, such as fire and lightning, while divine comes directly from the god, but Psionics in the manipulation of internal energies to perform specific effects.

Do you prefer Vancian magic or some other spellcasting method?

I don't know what the Vancian method is. Before 3e came out I preferred magic user methods although carrying a spellbook around has its risks. After 3e came out I preferred the Sorcerer method of spontaneous casting.

Is it easily accessible to learn or is it a painstaking enterprise?

Well, if we go the standards book and ritual route, then it is accessible to anybody, although restricted by the ruling class. Some people just don't have the intelligence or wisdom to use it. However, I think I prefer that some people have to be born with a special aptitude for any kind of magic before they can use it. If everybody can have it, it's not a wondrous thing.

Is it earth-shattering or subtle? Is it benign or malignant?

It all depends on who's using it. Like firearms, magic is a tool that can be used for the benefit of people or for the harming of people.

How do magic-users view magic?

It's a tool, nothing more.

How do non-magic-users view magic?

It is a wondrous thing, and to be respected. people value knowledge above all else, and magic is the greatest tool to use to bring people knowledge. Anything else is superstition and ignorance.

 

[Celebrim]

oops.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Do you prefer magic that is distinctly delineated by source (i.e., arcane vs. divine vs. psionic), or do you prefer singular unified magic systems? Do you prefer Vancian magic or some other spellcasting method? Is magic prevalent or rare? Is it easily accessible to learn or is it a painstaking enterprise? Is it earth-shattering or subtle? Is it benign or malignant? Is magic metaphysically explainable or is it utterly mysterious? Is magic treated as a technological tool or as a chaotic force? How do magic-users view magic? How do non-magic-users view magic? Or perhaps it falls somewhere between all these or in other aspects that I did not include.

In short, how do you prefer magic to exist in your games?

I don't really think about it that way, more just as part of the game. For what its worth: Non-delineated, magic point based, prevalent, easily accessible, neither, neither (nutral/unaligned), tech, and NPCs don't think about it.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It depends on the game and the "feel" I'm aiming for. There are so many different ways to envision what magic is and how it works, that the decision can deeply influence the nature of the campaign.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Magic is fairly rare in the 'human world' but the PCs encounter it a lot. PCs tend to go to strange places and, in most rpgs, they tend to be more magical than the average joe, so magic seeks them out.

I see the weird, the magical, as being of a very diverse nature - lots and lots of bizarre powers, other dimensions, strange monsters - so many that it's impossible to form a coherent overall picture of how it works. It works in a wide variety of ways. Sages will have theories but that's all they are, even the wisest sage can only grasp a tiny fraction of the multiverse.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmmm....

1) To me the 'divine' vs 'arcane' distinction is less a distinction between mode of operation as it is a distinction between the actor. In 'divine' magic, you persuade or compell someone or something to perform magic on your behalf. 'Arcane' magic suggests a more 'do it yourself' approach. Thus I think you make a false distinction in your question. I consider 'divine'/'arcane' to be part of a unified single system. A unified single system is my preference, but that doesn't mean I reject a divine/arcane divide.
2) I prefer Vancian on the whole. What I've discovered over the years is that while Vancian has very poor emulation of the mechanics of magic in fantasy fiction (except of course for Vance himself), it does a very good emulation of the general outcome of magic in fantasy fiction. The exception to that is settings where everyone who is anyone is a magic user of some sort and everyone generally uses magic all the time, where I might prefer some other mechanic. But for any setting where magic is relatively rare and those who know magic generally refrain from practicing it for whatever reason whether moral prohibition, inherent danger, rarity of mana, stresses and rigors of frequent casting, Vancian does a good job of recreating outcomes in terms of the frequency of spellcasting and the powers and abilities displayed when those restrictions are temporarily abated from necessity or because of the prodigal power and ability of the protagonist.
3) Magic is generally ubiquitous, but awesome magic such as encounter and eventually wielded by PC's is extremely rare.
4) Magic is extremely difficult to learn, but no more difficult than say learning the combination of advanced mathimatics, playing classical piano, and learning ancient greek.
5) Magic is metaphysically explainable, but may not be any more understandable in practice than any complex real world phenomena. Likewise, there may be limits on the understanding of magic in the society just as a 18th century scientist might fail to understand what he observes despite the fact that it is explainable (but perhaps not actually understood) by an average 20th century student.
6) Magic is treated as a technological force. This does not necessarily mean that this is the proper way to treat it in all cases, and just like other technologies, not everyone that uses it uses it ethically and few if any of its users necessarily understand all the consequences of their actions.
7) Non-magic users are extremely fearful of magic users, often with just cause. Even a low level wizard can do things like rape your mind with 'charm person', causing you to behave contrary to what may be your wishes, or decieve your mind with illusions causing you to see things that are not there, or summon up fiendish monsters to attack you. This is a level of power over your person not even possessed by modern technology. Inhabitants of my magical worlds tend to feel things are largely out of their control and that this in fact often sucks. Additionally, high level magic spawns an uncomfortably high number of world threatening events. Thus, pretty much everyone agrees that keeping wizards in their place and fully under the control of the community (or at least fully outside of it where they can do less harm) is in everyone's best interests - and even quite a few wizards would agree. Of course, in a world where magic was more limited in scope magicians would likely be less feared.

 

[Roland55]

I don't think in terms of having one, single preference.

Pretty much every approach to magic has strengths and weaknesses. I figure out what I want for a particular campaign feel, and choose my magic accordingly.

Bingo.

I think that, by now, I've gone through every permutation I've ever dreamed up or read about. They've all been useful.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think in terms of having one, single preference.

Pretty much every approach to magic has strengths and weaknesses. I figure out what I want for a particular campaign feel, and choose my magic accordingly.

It depends on the game and the "feel" I'm aiming for. There are so many different ways to envision what magic is and how it works, that the decision can deeply influence the nature of the campaign.

QFT.

I've played games featuring a variety of disinct magical sources, each with their own rules, but also games in which all magic had a single source with a wide variety ow ways to access or channel it... And a slew of variations in between.

And each had its own strengths and weaknesses; as well as unique effects upon the storyline that arose from those mechanical details.