Why Not Magic?

[Composer99]

I don’t really understand a thing, and I’d like to.

In every game that isn’t specifically about doing magic, folks expect to be able to play a wholly non-magical character. I’m building a game of my own, and I am having trouble seeing reasons that anyone who has magic as an option would choose not to use it?

This relates to the non-magical Ranger thread, but it’s more about the thematic notion of fully mundane heroes in a world with fairly common magic.

In my game’s setting, anyone who is exposed to magic and chooses to practice and study it can learn magic. This means all PCs have magic skills available to them, and all archetypes have magic skills on their skill list, though some only have 1 or 2.

I guess the question is; why would someone choose to be a hero/adventurer/etc and not want to learn any magic?

In the context of your particular setting, I would expect most player characters would learn magic unless they had a particular reason not to. In that setting, it sounds like it's a tool much like others. You use the tools you have to do the job at hand.

For many TTRPGs, though, I suspect there is enough ambiguity in the "default" setting (if the game has one) about how commonplace magic is, or how it's viewed by non-magic folk, to make a wide variety of player character views work within the setting. That's the case with D&D, especially in settings outside of the Forgotten Realms.

And of course there are TTRPGs whose settings lean into magic as being inherently corrupting or dangerous.

---

Because if everything is magic then nothing is

moreover there is no purpose to doing anything else - if everyone can use a magic missile that never misses then why bother with archery, or even inventing the bow? Why bother with rope if I can spiderclimb or fly? Why bother to be a blacksmith instead or fabricate? why bother to go out and work when I can just cast goodberry or heroes feast?

a character wants to achieve things by their own ability, superior strength or agility or endurance, not have the convinience of a spell doing it for them

thats why I hate spells that replace skills - instead they should gove a skill bonus but still require the character to use their natural ability…

This doesn't really make sense to me.

(1) Your references are D&D-centric, where it's worth noting that most powerful magic effects that genuinely step on non-magical capabilities are limited-use. When you can cast spells only so many times in a day before the tank runs out of gas, you're probably better off having people who can do non-magic stuff over and over and over and over (and so on). And other games don't use the D&D paradigm.

(2) A character achieving things by their own ability to use magic is not meaningfully different from a character achieving things by their own ability to do something else, all else in the setting being equal.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I don’t really understand a thing, and I’d like to.

In every game that isn’t specifically about doing magic, folks expect to be able to play a wholly non-magical character. I’m building a game of my own, and I am having trouble seeing reasons that anyone who has magic as an option would choose not to use it?

This relates to the non-magical Ranger thread, but it’s more about the thematic notion of fully mundane heroes in a world with fairly common magic.

In my game’s setting, anyone who is exposed to magic and chooses to practice and study it can learn magic. This means all PCs have magic skills available to them, and all archetypes have magic skills on their skill list, though some only have 1 or 2.

I guess the question is; why would someone choose to be a hero/adventurer/etc and not want to learn any magic?

I would say this reminds me of some folks who culturally avoid science in lieu of folk-whatever.

some people are culturally avoidant of some things that would benefit them whether by virtue of religion, politics or religion ideas and values transmitted through their family culture.

but in most cases they get by fine the old fashioned way right up until they need modern medicine or whatever. And even then some folks choose to go their own way.

If an adventurer could succeed without magic they might do what they know and have been taught.

though some conveniences like the very ready access to fire or light or healing would be very hard for even traditionally no magic wielding folk to resist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Another item might be if they specialize in something mundane tools do better.
Thing is if there is magic as an enhancer then they will do both.

Absolutely. Also; If magic can make blacksmithing better and easier, that just means that blacksmithing will get more advanced. Creative people don’t tend to just sit around in stagnation, they challenge themselves and eachother and figure out new stuff. If magic can cause part of a piece to stay cool while another part becomes very hot, ways to use that to make things you couldn’t otherwise will be developed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But they probably wouldn’t be Rangers (a word which here refers to people who are Wise to the supernatural and go about helping people, so the PCs and thier most useful allies), or would have a much harder time doing the job.

The problem, I suspect, is you're applying that specific meaning to ranger, when other people who want a non-magic ranger aren't; to them its just a concept about a wilderness-wise light fighter/scout. It certainly doesn't automatically evoke anything supernatural to me.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Is magic tied to formal training?

if so, economic and social considerations might be a factor.

a poor urchin turned thief may never be shown even rudimentary skills and focus on hand to mouth survival.

now if anyone can learn by trial and error the story changes dramatically! I don’t think it would be common to see folks without magic at all

 

[Dausuul]

Magic is only the best way to do everything if you, the creator of the world, choose to make it so.

If, on the other hand, there are things that magic isn't very good at, people who specialize in those things won't use magic.

Personally, I strongly prefer a magic system with weaknesses as well as strengths.

 

[Undrave]

I like the option of low-/non-magical PCs because I don't automatically assume that the world is one with fairly common (or safe) magic. Personally, I like to be able to twist that "magical setting" dial down, and still have plenty of options for PCs. Yes, that's not "default" gonzo-style D&D, but low-magic is a common fantasy trope, so it'd be nice to do it out of the box.

But... Your question assumes a magical setting. In that case, I think you're probably right: It probably is strange to prefer a character with no magic. I mean, I can think of a few RP rationales (eg, some philosophical order that eschews magic use). But aside from stuff like that, if magic really is the most effective tool in a setting, it does seem strange not to use that tool.

There's also this weird dichotomy where people want their magical adventurers and think magic is common... but somehow magical EQUIPMENT has to absolutely be rare and you can't have 'Magical Flea Markets'. It's one or the other, you can't have both! Either magic is rare or a fighter can deck himself out in magical gear (which I am perfectly fine with for a Mundane Hero in such a world) if they have the coin!

 

[pemerton]

So I gather @doctorbadwolf is framing the question from an in-fiction perspective.

What is magic, within the fiction?

Glorantha gives one answer, which @Bluenose has explained upthread - magic is a mode of participating in social life, and so all non-outcasts use it. Another RPG that presented something similar to this is Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved - especially in the Mearls-authored supplement Mystic Secrets: The Lore of Word and Rune.

Middle Earth gives a different answer: "magic" can be the closeness to earth/nature of some beings (Elves, Dwarves Hobbits) - and Burning Wheel is the best incorporation of that idea into a RPG that I know of - or can be "spells" which only The Wise can learn, and which is dangerous knowledge on top of that.

Eberron, as I understand it, gives a different answer again: "magic" is technology which is widely available and which doesn't depend upon any particular aspect of character or personality to master (or are Dragonmarks an exception to this? I've never quite got those). So only "luddites" would reject magic.

I don't think there's any answer to the question that can be put forward independent of these matters of culture, history, theology, etc.

 

[Garthanos]

There's also this weird dichotomy where people want their magical adventurers and think magic is common... but somehow magical EQUIPMENT has to absolutely be rare and you can't have 'Magical Flea Markets'. It's one or the other, you can't have both! Either magic is rare or a fighter can deck himself out in magical gear (which I am perfectly fine with for a Mundane Hero in such a world) if they have the coin!

Perseus or the Atlantean Warrior sparkling with magic .... oh and make spells cost cash like rituals do and tada the wizard is not decked out in items as his cash goes to spellcraft.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem, I suspect, is you're applying that specific meaning to ranger, when other people who want a non-magic ranger aren't; to them its just a concept about a wilderness-wise light fighter/scout. It certainly doesn't automatically evoke anything supernatural to me.

Um…this isn’t the Ranger thread, so I doubt it. In the Ranger thread, I’m talking about the D&D Ranger. In this thread I’m not even talking about D&D .

Is magic tied to formal training?

if so, economic and social considerations might be a factor.

a poor urchin turned thief may never be shown even rudimentary skills and focus on hand to mouth survival.

Agreed.

now if anyone can learn by trial and error the story changes dramatically! I don’t think it would be common to see folks without magic at all

So would you design a game with some level of accommodation for players that don’t want a magical character in such a world?

Magic is only the best way to do everything if you, the creator of the world, choose to make it so.

If, on the other hand, there are things that magic isn't very good at, people who specialize in those things won't use magic.

Personally, I strongly prefer a magic system with weaknesses as well as strengths.

I think that if magic is generally useful, it’s just going to be used. Because at some point it becomes weird if society keeps rejecting magic.


One of the issues I have with a lot of fantasy worlds is the dichotomy of ancient magical traditions, and whole ethnic-cultural geographic regions where no group with power to create infrastructure has ever tried to figure out how many people can learn to do it and increase the prevalence of it, even when the world doesn’t view magic as evil or inherently dangerous!