Is Magic Too Commonplace In RPGs?

[Philotomy Jurament]

Contrasting it with 2e and before, I disagree. IME, the assumptions on the average provide for less magic than before.

Debatable, I suppose. I think the earlier editions were much less deliberate about it, though. That is, there might be an assumption that a 4th level Fighter will have a magic weapon, but I don't think it was built into the system in the same way.

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.

I didn't mean to imply that the rules should neglect to nail down an average, or establish a guideline. I think its possible to provide a guideline without the built-in assumption of magic. The guideline is based on the character's abilities, separate from items/possessions. Then the DM makes the call on how much magic (especially in the form of items) is available in his campaign.

D20 has generally balanced rules that quantify everything; they work well and consistently, and that's great if they're modeling exactly what you want. I like a little more leeway as a DM, and for tinkering, I think it's easier to adjust by adding than to deconstruct/subtract. No biggee, just different tastes, IMO.

 

[Bront]

Too few options on the poll - there should have been a choice for 'It Depends On the Game'.

Did not vote.

The Auld Grump

Ditto

 

[Psion]

I didn't mean to imply that the rules should neglect to nail down an average, or establish a guideline. I think its possible to provide a guideline without the built-in assumption of magic.

That it may be. But I was responding to this:

If you want anything but the standard level of magic you need to do some adjusting. Not impossible, of course, but definitely a hassle.

If you establish a lower standard, it's just as much of a hassle if you want to adjust it up. So it's not as if this problem vanishes if you lower the standard. It just gets shifted to people who want something different than you do...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It doesn't depend on the game. I'm happy to endorse this as a general statement that almost all game systems fall short of my ideal of the wonder and mystery of magic, even those where the game is about the magic. Some game designers get it, very few games as a whole do.

Considering that there are RPGs with no magic whatsoever this statement was complete nonsense.

The Auld Grump

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Contrasting it with 2e and before, I disagree. IME, the assumptions on the average provide for less magic than before.

I strongly disagree with that. The way DMs ran 2e campaigns varied widely, so looking at PC treasure is, IMO, not a good idea. (I don't ever recall being covered in magic items in 2e, however.)

Looking at published adventures, the amount of treasure seemed lower, and the amount of magic carried by NPCs was definitely and measurably lower.

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.

On this I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

For those having trouble with the poll, it's just a general question.

A badly stated general question. There are games with no magic, games where only the GM has magic (Pendragon used to be this way), games with commonplace but weak magic (Runequest Sprit Magic), games with rare but powerful magic, etc.

Too broad to be a good question.

The Auld Grump

 

[WayneLigon]

No, I don't think it's too common. I also think that the GM decides how prevelant magic is in his game - though changing a game from the way it's written also places a burden on the GM to change his style of GMing. If he decides that, say, there is no healing magic and then goes ahead and plans encounters as if such a thing still existed, he cannot complain that 'Game X does not support changing the level of magic'. He's a lazy fool who needs to keep his mouth shut; this is why we have GMs instead of computer programs. I can't really think of a game where this is not so.

 

[The Shaman]

Since the options were yay or nay, I voted yes. I think my more inclusive answer is, "It depends."

I like magic to be rare, dangerous, and a bit unpredictable. The safe, reliable technological magic of core Dungeons and Dragons doesn't appeal to me - I prefer magic as presented in Conan RPG or Call of Cthulhu.

The two roleplaying games that I enjoy most are d20 Modern and classic Traveller. In d20 Modern, magical FX can be added or removed readily, and there are well-developed options on how magic can be incorporated into the game. I've hombrewed six different Modern campaigns and settings - one included incantation magic (along with sci-fi technology), one included psionics (with a bit of sci-fi tech), one included sci-fi technology, and three did not incorporate FX at all. (Of the three latter games, the genres were police-procedural, Wild West, and modern military.) None used D&D-style fire-and-forget magic. As far as magical monsters go, the incantation magic game included undead, but no fiends, magical beasts, or the like.

Traveller includes psionics and sci-fi technology, but "magic" in the conventional sense of the word is not included in the core rules. I have introduced "supernatural" effects as plot devices and the odd, rare bit of super-advanced technology that are beyond explanation by current science, but no "spells" or spellcasters or magic items per se.

So, my qualified yes: I am much more likely to enjoy roleplaying games that have either rare or no magic.

Mark, may I ask what prompted this question?

 

[Mark]

Mark, may I ask what prompted this question?

As I was going over the list of wargames I played for the grognard thread and also thinking about the many RPGs I have tried over the years (added a poll to my own site on this), I began to think about the evolution of games in general and RPGs in particular. Aside from that, I thinking about movies and television of the fantasy genre in those 35+ years, as well. As all of this went through my head, this question was one of a number I pondered. I'd comment more on why but I am trying to avoid having that color the answers (which is also why the question was phrased intentionally too broad, as it were). I'll post some of the other questions in the not-too-distant future, as I personally think about them more and figure out a way to make them suitably cryptic and somewhat unfathomable.

 

[The Shaman]

I'd comment more on why but I am trying to avoid having that color the answers (which is also why the question was phrased intentionally too broad, as it were). I'll post some of the other questions in the not-too-distant future, as I personally think about them more and figure out a way to make them suitably cryptic and somewhat unfathomable.

Thank you - I'll be looking for future enigmas in the coming weeks.