Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5680921" data-attributes="member: 23240">From my point of view, magic in a good book or a good RPG is always a "setting element". It fits there, is well integrated, even if rare and generally unknown. If it is not, there is a dissonance, a jarring feeling that the whole does not make sense. It would be nearly impossible for me to run or play a game in such world.The opposition I would point to is the one between magic used as a plot device and magic used as a tool. The first one fits the "mythic" style. Magic plays an important role in the story, but the story is not about how the magic works and how it does not. There may be moral questions about if and how magic is to be used. There may be challenges concerning acquiring magic or fighting against it. But you'll never be able to clearly tell what a spellcaster can and cannot do. You won't be surprised by creative use of magic. Magic won't follow rules, other than some very general principles.That is what we see in Lord of the Rings or Wizard of the Earthsea.This kind of magic is extremely hard to do in an RPG. If you give it to players, you need to dress it in rules and it destroys the concept. If only used by antagonists, it feels like GM fiat. Only a system that is abstract enough to resolve the conflicts while leaving all "magical" effects to the GM may work here.The second kind is magic working as a tool. It follows strict rules. It may be explored in the setting and tested to its limits. It may surprise in the same way as a crime story surprises - by doing something that the reader could predict, but probably did not, even with all available information. This kind of magic is used to solve problems by itself, because it has clear limitations that make it interesting. "How do I achieve X with magic that does A, B and C" is a good question.The best examples of this approach to magic are Brandon Sanderson's books. Sanderson also wrote a <a href="http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/40/Sandersons-First-Law" target="_blank">good article about it</a>.This kind of magic is much easier to do in a RPG game. When magic has its own rules and they are interesting, game mechanics does not have to put any additional limitations on it. The surprising thing is that not many fantasy RPGs fully embrace this paradigm.The worst approach - unfortunately, frequently used - is trying to mix these two. On one hand, players are given magic with rule-defined effects, forcing them into "tool magic" thinking. On the other hand, settings are built on a mix of "we ignore magic here" and "a wizard did it handwave". As a result, neither mythical nor modern way of thinking about the game world works. Mythical thinking cannot survive rule-enforced, non-thematic limits, while "tool magic" approach leads to game-breaking effects.It's really funny (in a sad way) when compared to Sanderson's Mistborn - where characters often did what most GMs would decry "abuses" and "loopholes" (like using a few coins, steel and iron burning for rapid travel).</blockquote>

Verification