Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 412716" data-attributes="member: 6398">Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I must disagree in that you are missing a few possible elements.&nbsp; To begin with, you indicate that the spell mechanics are there to keep the magic system consistant.&nbsp; But sometimes it is this very consistancy that is the problem.&nbsp; Spells levels, for instance, are categorized by Levels based on their power and effect, usually in regards to combative situation, but often with little regard on effect on story.&nbsp; Example: In a game where mystery of ages past and solving these mysteries are more important than combat, than comprehend languages becomes far more impacting than 1st Level would seem to indicate, and such themes are downplayed since the translation of such cryptic writings is little more than a cheap parlor trick.Another example is one of commonolity and ease of use.&nbsp; 3E makes an assumption that magic is just lying about and any one can simply become a spell caster.&nbsp; There's little difficulty in learning or using magic.&nbsp; These elements, if desired in a setting, aren't easily described over the game mechanics as written, but require actual changes to the rules in order to make it true (my personal take was a Mage Born Feat and Casting Fatigue).&nbsp; It is indeed better to have rules where such things are true as opposed to trying to &quot;simply justify&quot; someone else's arbitrary decision that magic is easy to learn, use and obtain.I wouldn't consider any such thought or effort to be &quot;metagame&quot; thinking simply because metagaming can only occur while the game is being played.&nbsp; Outside of the game, such line of thought becomes more akin to &quot;I wonder what would happen if..?&quot;, which may easily evolve into &quot;How would I make this work..?&quot;&nbsp; That's not metagaming; That's game design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 412716, member: 6398"] Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I must disagree in that you are missing a few possible elements. To begin with, you indicate that the spell mechanics are there to keep the magic system consistant. But sometimes it is this very consistancy that is the problem. Spells levels, for instance, are categorized by Levels based on their power and effect, usually in regards to combative situation, but often with little regard on effect on story. Example: In a game where mystery of ages past and solving these mysteries are more important than combat, than [i]comprehend languages[/i] becomes far more impacting than 1st Level would seem to indicate, and such themes are downplayed since the translation of such cryptic writings is little more than a cheap parlor trick. Another example is one of commonolity and ease of use. 3E makes an assumption that magic is just lying about and any one can simply become a spell caster. There's little difficulty in learning or using magic. These elements, if desired in a setting, aren't easily described over the game mechanics as written, but require [i]actual[/i] changes to the rules in order to make it true (my personal take was a Mage Born Feat and Casting Fatigue). It is indeed better to have rules where such things are true as opposed to trying to "simply justify" someone else's arbitrary decision that magic is easy to learn, use and obtain. I wouldn't consider any such thought or effort to be "metagame" thinking simply because metagaming can only occur while the game is being played. Outside of the game, such line of thought becomes more akin to "I wonder what would happen if..?", which may easily evolve into "How would I make this work..?" That's not metagaming; That's game design. [/QUOTE]

Verification