Is Magic Too Commonplace In RPGs?

[tylerthehobo]

I think it's more of a question of what do you prefer in your game - highmagic, or tokienian-a-few-wizards-with-a-handful-of-spells, or Nordic sagas where there are very few instances of magic, and when they occur they are breathtaking, etc. (man, I just *destroyed* grammar and structure) Myself, I voted "Too much magic" and I for one am a big fan of Eberron and FR; I just feel that the magic becomes a munchkin item far more often than something mystical and "different" - it loses its luster if it's "but I have this splat book with all these spells that you have to allow in the game, now."

 

[Ibram]

Firstly, the poll is far to broad... but then I imagine that if there was a "in some games" question that would get most of the votes.

Personaly I perfer lower magic games, in which magic is both rare and dangerous. As the presence of magic increases I've often had trouble with the logic used. Why are there droughts when there are decanters of endless water? Famine when there are spells that create food? Crime when there are divination spells and zones of truth? Fear of death when there are resurection spells every time you turn around?

 

[Conaill]

In D&D... YES!


Sorry... pet peeve.

 

[Remathilis]

"Any suficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Unknown.

That said, I think its the APPEAL of RPGS.

First thing: to define "magic". If you define it as the act of casting spells, its not too commonplace outside of Sword and Sorcery style RPGs. If you define it as any supernatural entity, its very commonplace (zombies in the streets, werewolves, the Force, etc) If you define it as abilities beyond our capacity (see quote), its the esscence of RPGs.

IMHO: You COULD play a modern or historical RPG that is 100% accurate (no zombies, wizards or death rays) but I don't think that would a.) sell as well or b.) be that interesting. An RPG about the shadow-politics of a group of powerful, supersecret people is mildly interesting, make them vampires, and you have a gold-mine. Its the same reason hard sci-fi doesn't do as well as softer types with time travel, warp speed, or mystical knights with plasma swords.

Now, you can agrue specifics (D&D vs RIFTS, WoD vs d20 Modern, Traveller vs. Star Wars) but in general, RPGS tend to provide some level of "magic", be it super-weapons, incantations, or just zombie-hordes. So in answer to your question; yes RPGs is too Commonplace in RPGS, but thats what makes them RPGs.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's meant to be.

It's meant to be too broad?! That just doesn't make sense to me.

There isn't really an answer I can give that would suit, I think.

 

[Drowbane]

I disagree with both sentences. Compare two very similar games:
-- Iron Heroes was done so it may play without magic at all; and the Arcanist class can be removed easily.
-- D&D is flooded with magic, remove everything magical, from classes to monsters, and only remain maybe 20% of the game. Then, clerics are almost needed to give back hp, and many players think that the game cannot be played without magical items, especially at higher levels. In any case, a campaign with only barbarian, fighter, scout, and rogue available would feel poor. Much better play Grim Tales or Iron Heroes in this case.

I never said D&D was balanced if you stripped it of magic. I just said it could be done. And if you stick to the weak-for-thier-CR critters, you'd do fine. Don't go stripping magic and put your players up against Trolls, Dragons, and other big stuff... unless you're fond of the letters "T-P-K"

 

[Aus_Snow]

I never said D&D was balanced if you stripped it of magic. --snip-- weak-for-thier-CR critters

Seems like you think D&D isn't balanced with all its magic intact! Heretic!

 

[tek2way]

I think it's more of a question of what do you prefer in your game - highmagic, or tokienian-a-few-wizards-with-a-handful-of-spells, or Nordic sagas where there are very few instances of magic, and when they occur they are breathtaking, etc. (man, I just *destroyed* grammar and structure) Myself, I voted "Too much magic" and I for one am a big fan of Eberron and FR; I just feel that the magic becomes a munchkin item far more often than something mystical and "different" - it loses its luster if it's "but I have this splat book with all these spells that you have to allow in the game, now."

THAT'S IT! That's why I chose "yes". Magic, at least in d20, is no longer "magical". I remember those days of playing 1e/2e, and a magic user was something considered powerful and frightening (and magical weapons were loved -- I was happy with even a +1 longsword back then).

I've read some good arguments for why there's not too much magic in this thread, but I just miss the "wow" factor in magic that is special and powerful. One of my favorite 3e games, though, used my DM's custom magic system, and that brought a bit of the spark back, because it was all unknown. We had to learn about it as we went, and THAT was a lot of fun.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I voted yes, because d20 D&D is the biggest slice of pie in the RPG market (more like most of the pie, rather than just a slice), and I think d20 suffers from an overabundance of magic "built in."

I wish it was more like someone else said, where "there's only as much magic as the DM puts in." But that's not really the case, IMO, because d20 is designed to include and assume magic. A character of a given level is assumed by the rules to possess a certain level of magic. Monster CRs are designed to assume magic. The whole game is carefully balanced, and a substantial amount of magic is assumed as part of that balance. If you mess with it, you throw it off, to one degree or another.

If you want anything but the standard level of magic you need to do some adjusting. Not impossible, of course, but definitely a hassle. I'd prefer it if the system didn't have such assumptions built-in (e.g. True20 seems to avoid this problem).

 

[Psion]

If you want anything but the standard level of magic you need to do some adjusting. Not impossible, of course, but definitely a hassle. I'd prefer it if the system didn't have such assumptions built-in

Contrasting it with 2e and before, I disagree. IME, the assumptions on the average provide for less magic than before. As for it being a "hassle", I think its far more a hassle to operate within a system that does NOT nail down an average. If you have a standard that you know you are above or below, you can be aware of that fact and compensate for it. If there is no standard, you never really have a good idea before hand without some trial-and-error. THAT is, if anything, a hassle.