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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 116207" data-attributes="member: 2480">Re: Well...No, you're not alone! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Forgotten Realms has really distorted the perception of magic in D&D, and it's disturbing how often the concept of the 'Weave' leaks out into other settings, as though it's the norm of magical systems.Personally, I generally don't like to examine the question of what magic is too closely. Not because it isn't interesting, but because that explanation can then take on a life of its own and distort the magic system. Both as players and DMs, we end up saying "well if magic is X, then of course it should be possible to do Y, and just about impossible to do Z". In the process you can then end up undermining the game mechanical concepts on which D&D is built.From a practical perspective, it's far better to instead discuss the limits of magic - what magic can and cannot do in the game. This has actual uses in both adjudicating the game, and in shaping the expectations of its character practitioners. I have always liked the Ars Magica model of magic. At no point is there an attempt to really explain what magic is, beyond some vague notion of an Aristotelian-Platonic fusion of Form and Material. Instead, there are the known limits of magic, typified by certain Laws, each of which is expanded upon to give players and GMs the tools they need to decide what to do with magic.In a game such as D&D, where a lot is made of balanced play, the why is a whole lot less important that the what.</blockquote>

Verification