I somehow don't see that happening. If you've got the last mage in the world in your party, magic (in some form or other) is going to be front and centre whether anyone really wants it to be or not.
Only if the PCs actions warrant it (what if they're really clever about not using their magic in obvious ways) or the GM forces the issue.
You seem to be assuming D&D-style fireballs, but that's a big assumption. Look at Mage: the Ascension, where you're
required to make your magic as unobtrusive as possible. If you want to shoot a lightning bolt at a target, that's
bad; it causes Paradox. If you want to subtly rearrange reality so that a car crashes into a utility pole and causes the power lines to snap and one of them to hit your target, thus electrocuting them, that's fine, because it
seems to be a mundane event.
And in D&D, most spellcasters are going to have access to a very large number of spells that do all manner of things. That's not true in other games; in many games, you only get a handful of spells, if that. In SWADE, for instance, you're probably not going to start with more than three or four spells (and often less), and it's unlikely you'll learn more than a dozen over the course of the entire game.
If your last mage only knows a couple of spells that have a relatively small number of uses, the game is
not going to revolve around them. The other PCs are going to be far more useful in most situations.
Because you, the GM, are not required to write adventures about it. Maybe
you only play in completely open sandboxes, but you have to realize that's not the case with most games.
And maybe the cause of magic's dying is well-known. Maybe magic died when the last dragon was slain, or when the Orb of Magic was broken in order to seal the rift that led to the chthonic Netherworld, or when the God of Icky Things slew the God of Magic. There's no question of dying/rebirthing magic unless you, the GM, make it so. If the players want to chase dead ends, then it's up to you to decide if you want them to waste everyone's time or if you want to just outright say "hey, guys, there's no way to bring magic back. This is a post-magipocalyse game."
The one time I played a chosen one (or similar) it wasn't by any choice of mine. In fact, I was trying to retire the character at the time because giving up adventuring was what the character would have done in his then-current situation, for various reasons. It took a Charm Person from another PC to get him to go back into the field again, so off he went to his chosen-one destiny.
That player was a jerk then, because your character decisions are not up to other players to
force. Especially not with mind-rape magic like
charm person.
Is it, though? I'd say the odds are very high that choice is going to be made for him, if not by my character then by someone else in the setting who - depending on that person's (or group's) view of magic - either wants to keep him safe or kill him.
Yes, it is.
This is bad behavior. You shouldn't be tolerating this at your table.
Which only works if I'm willing to relegate my character to a forever-support role; and that would depend entirely on whether I'm running a character who would, in-character, be willing to take on that role. Some would. Others wouldn't.
So
forcing a player to have their PC stay at home and
forcing a player to continue playing a PC they don't want to are both OK, but actively choosing for your
own character to act as a bodyguard is not OK? So, you're fine with things that affect others as long as they don't affect you, personally? Wow.
If the last mage was a party NPC I'd do the same thing.
And that would be
dumb move on your part. It's no more sensible for you to go adventuring then it is for a last mage to be adventuring.
Tough. It'd be the same as if you'd decided to play a character with a big fat price on its head and I (or I and the rest of the party) decided to turn you in for the reward. Just because someone in the setting has a player attached is no reason to treat it any differently than if it didn't, and IMO players have to realize this.
Which would also be a jerk move, because part of the game is to work as a
team, not to betray each other like that. And again, maybe your games are filled with people who don't understand or care about concepts like teamwork or consent, but most games are
not like that.
And if I-as-player made a character choice that left me similarly vulnerable to the actions of my fellow party members, I have no cause to complain if-when they just do what their characters would do and turn me in. C'est la vie - out come the roll-up dice and away I go.
And most gamers actually
care about their characters to not just shrug their shoulders like this.
An NPC could do the same thing, which puts us right back to the last-mage player not having through it through all the way.
At this point,t he only thing they haven't thought through is why they would want to play at a table like yours.
