Why Not Magic?

[Warpiglet-7]

I think you might want a broad palette for characters. You want them to have options. If there is a cost to magic it matters. Perhaps it’s unpredictable or dangerous.

maybe some people are honored for doing it the hard way. Some warrior traditions are not totally efficient so to speak but the honor and adherence to a code matters.

maybe if you want to have magic use be common but not universal maybe it’s an aptitude or inheritance that skills can match in some facets but it’s not easy for every individual even if it’s present in every society as a whole? Just thinking out loud.

I would love to be able to teleport and would have a hard time saying no to the power!

eldritch blast would be pretty keen…

 

[Garthanos]

Garthanos said:
The character might even be a throwback. If most of the world is using a form of formal magic sharply defined and delineated the individual may be using a subtle informal manifestation from an earlier era. And be learning his own way.

@doctorbadwolf One might add this to your story line ... they might be derided as throwbacks and primitivists or wilders or something. And while you can add ways they learn new empowered effects perhaps it even seems accidental.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Um…this isn’t the Ranger thread, so I doubt it. In the Ranger thread, I’m talking about the D&D Ranger. In this thread I’m not even talking about D&D .

Don't take this wrong, man--but it isn't about you. Its about how the people wanting a non-magic ranger are seeing it. The description I gave is much older and has a much bigger footprint than any more specific one. It goes back to all kinds of archetypes that predate Aragorn even, and if that's how they think of it, that's how they're going to see it whether you, I or anyone else thinks its relevant.

More broadly, some people have specific ideas about certain concepts they want to engage with, and if the setting doesn't want them to, they'll either walk away from it or fight with the setting. Yes, that latter's a problem, but its also reality.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Don't take this wrong, man--but it isn't about you.

You realize this literally isn’t the Ranger thread, right?

 

[aramis erak]

I don’t really understand a thing, and I’d like to.

[snip]

I guess the question is; why would someone choose to be a hero/adventurer/etc and not want to learn any magic?

I know players of 4 different types of motivations for this:

1. Because it comes with other benefits
2. For the Challenge
3. Avoid the Complexity
4. Because it's thematically appropriate

Other Benefits...
In D&D 5E, that's

• Fighter: more HP, better with weapons
• Barbarian: more HP, better with weapons (but not as far as fighters), increased stat maximum for ST & Con
• Rogue: better damage, better stealth, can actually learn skills to better levels than any other class

In Tunnels and Trolls, I may as well discuss all 4 "Types" (core classes) from the 5E rules and the explicit one and implied one from the 1E Monsters! Monsters! rules:

• Core
  • Warrior: double armor's value (damage reduction), but cannot cast spells by any means. (Some later editions increase combat adds, as well)
  • Wizard: reduce spell costs by (CL-SL; can further reduce by using a staff, cannot use weapons with 3D or more combat potential. (Daggers, staves, and slings all have 2d base, but various adds/subtracts to/from those 2d. At higher levels, can create spells
  • Rogue: Can cast spells, but cannot reduce spell costs. Can use any weapon or armor at base. Cannot buy spells from the guild.
  • Warrior-Wizard (later called Paragon): reduce spell costs by (CL-SL)/2, reduce with staff, +1 to value of worn armor, +1 to shield's Armor
• Monsters! Monsters!
  • Monster: kindred specific special abilities, unarmed damage = level. Can cast spells, can use weapons. Cannot reduce spell costs, cannot reduce magic costs by either means.
  • Normal Man (implied): do not know magic, but can be taught like rogues; cannot reduce the costs. Can use any weapons Do not gain any other bonuses.

T&T Warriors suck up damage. In actual play, they make saving rolls to do things that allow them to take others' share of damage. It's not actually written in the rules that way, but it's part of the game that is implied strongly enough that most think it is. It's also worth noting that damage in T&T is to Con, so fighters don't actually have significantly more damage capacity than wizards... Deluxe has shuffled things a bit, but basically, the core is the same, tho' a bunch of "specialists" exist (one per attribute), all characters get one talent (rogues get a second), Normal Men are formally a class, but have to roll to cast every spell, and thei get to increase a talent every level by 1.

For the Challenge
Some players simply like the challenge of not using all the available advantages.

To avoid the complexities of the Magic System
Most games magic systems add complexity to the character in excess of non-magical abilities. This is VERY true in D&D and T&T.
It's not particularly true in L5R 5E, since other kinds of abilities use the same mechanics, but spells have more limitations.

Because it's thematically appropriate.
Some players choose to play non-casters simply because the genre includes protagonists who aren't spellcasters. For example, in Ars Magica, it's thematic for non-mages to be part of the party, either as primary or secondary characters, because Mages have limits on allowed actions (due to setting guild rules, not mechanics), which custos characters do not.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

This thread has moved quickly. Anyway, after some clarification, I think it is perfectly fine to have a setting where the assumption is that everyone will have some level of magic. If the mechanics have a flaw system of some sort, you could have a non-magic/magic adverse flaw, like some systems set in the modern day have a flaw about technology use. This kind of setting will not appeal to some players, but that is pretty much the case for any setting really.

 

[Umbran]

One of the issues I have with a lot of fantasy worlds is the dichotomy of ancient magical traditions, and whole ethnic-cultural geographic regions where no group with power to create infrastructure has ever tried to figure out how many people can learn to do it and increase the prevalence of it, even when the world doesn’t view magic as evil or inherently dangerous!

Most fantasy authors are not sociologists, or experts in human behavior. They tend to write monocultures and sketches of cultures, and do not have time for nuance as their character tries to defeat Gororath the acid-spewing great wyrm, or whatever it is.

When you say that no group has ever tried, I think you are mistaking "tried" for "succeeded". Maybe groups have tried, but didn't manage to have an impact, for social, political, technical, or economic reasons, and so don't really bear mentioning as Gorgorath melts the city walls with its caustic emissions. An extended discussion about how one group tried, but failed, to teach magic broadly a hundred years ago, and if they'd succeeded, today Gorgorath would be met with an onslought of a thousand fireballs, but since they didn't the hero's love interest got swallowed whole, may not be a great story beat.

Also, the world not viewing magic as evil of inherently dangerous sounds like a generalization eliding into a mono-cultural trait. What does it mean that "the world doesn't view" things a certain way? What percentage of the population does that mean? How reasonable is it to expect a very high percentage of the population to share the same belief and be correct at the same time?

 

[Cadence]

I would say this reminds me of some folks who culturally avoid science in lieu of folk-whatever.

I think this gets at my approach to the question. What is the parallel between Magic in your world and Engineering/Science/Medicine in ours? Which time period of it does your world seem closer to ours in terms of superstition, folk-medicine, anti-industrialization, alchemy, internet addiction, etc...? Not every capable person in the modern world has lots of training in engineering, science, or medicine, but they are seemingly at a severe disadvantage in some ways if they close off some of the options available to them.

So would you design a game with some level of accommodation for players that don’t want a magical character in such a world?

If I were making a modern or futuristic campaign, I don't think I'd make anything special for characters who didn't want to use any products of science/medicine or didn't have an at least high school level knowledge of science and a basic first aid course. On the other hand that feels different than making a game where the characters are required to be a scientist or EMT/nurse/M.D. Which level of magic involvement are you aiming for?

I think for any campaign idea there are players somewhere who will rebel just for the sake of rebelling (wanting an ancient Egyptian type character in your Japanese inspired game, an elf in your world based on real medieval Europe that's all humans, a paladin in your breaking the law heist game, etc... ) or some folks who just aren't inspired by a particular game idea (don't want sci-fi, or fantasy, or old west, or whatnot). So I'd say that if everyone else is on board, not everyone needs to play all the time.

More broadly, some people have specific ideas about certain concepts they want to engage with, and if the setting doesn't want them to, they'll either walk away from it or fight with the setting. Yes, that latter's a problem, but its also reality.

Is it the setting not wanting? Or is it them not wanting?

It feels like there is a difference between someone who likes most board games but really dislikes a few, and someone who only likes a couple board games. The later isn't a problem if the person isn't in a board game group, or is in a group dedicated to those couple games. But it would be if they think they're going to enjoy being part of a board game club. (For the person who likes all but a few, the question is then if the group never supposed to play those games vs. plays them sometimes vs. deciding to play those games a lot).

 

[Dausuul]

I feel like there are a number of assumptions that many people default to in these discussions, which all boil down to "magic is just like technology":

1. Magic is generally safe to use.
2. Magic can be used by anybody.
3. Magic is not shackled to a particular scarce resource.
4. Magic offers practical benefits in every sphere of human life.

Take any one of these away, and there's no question why you'd have non-magic-using people. Arcane magic in Dark Sun, for example, violates #1 and #3: Magic is very unsafe, and it depends on a scarce and dwindling resource. (A lot of early D&D fiction also implies that magic requires inborn talent, violating #2; but I'm not sure if that's ever been explicitly stated in Dark Sun.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This thread has moved quickly. Anyway, after some clarification, I think it is perfectly fine to have a setting where the assumption is that everyone will have some level of magic. If the mechanics have a flaw system of some sort, you could have a non-magic/magic adverse flaw, like some systems set in the modern day have a flaw about technology use. This kind of setting will not appeal to some players, but that is pretty much the case for any setting really.

Yeah that is definitely an option, I just wonder if there might be value in finding a place that makes sense without a “magical Luddite” flaw or whatever. At this point I may have to make a different thread for the idea of having to eschew magic in order to train and maintain the ability to shut magic down and be especially resistant to it.

In my world I do have an order of knights who serve the Red Dragon of Wales, who specialize in countering magic. Right now they have allies who are part of secret orders that preserved what they could of the old Druidic traditions and adapted them over the centuries, I could make the dichotomy much clearer and have the Knights rely entirely on the Druidic Orders for magical work.

The question is, would that provide a good basis for fully mundane characters for the people who want them, or would it be a waste of effort I could put elsewhere. I don’t know.

Most fantasy authors are not sociologists, or experts in human behavior. They tend to write monocultures and sketches of cultures, and do not have time for nuance as their character tries to defeat Gororath the acid-spewing great wyrm, or whatever it is.

That’s bad writing. Like…even mediocre authors do a little research and spend some time thinking about how to make their world make sense, and features some noticeable degree of nuance.

When you say that no group has ever tried, I think you are mistaking "tried" for "succeeded". Maybe groups have tried, but didn't manage to have an impact, for social, political, technical, or economic reasons, and so don't really bear mentioning as Gorgorath melts the city walls with its caustic emissions. An extended discussion about how one group tried, but failed, to teach magic broadly a hundred years ago, and if they'd succeeded, today Gorgorath would be met with an onslought of a thousand fireballs, but since they didn't the hero's love interest got swallowed whole, may not be a great story beat.

I’m probably not mistaking the intent of my own words, but skipping past that, being threatened by a big monster wouldn’t stop people from trying to develop better weapons, and vanishingly few fantasy stories I’ve ever read feature societies that are constantly under threat.

This seems pretty tangential, as well. Why are we arguing the fine particulars of fantasy worldbuilding instead of discussing the question of why characters in a world where they could learn magic would choose not to, what might allow such characters to exist and make sense for the benefit of players with that preference in spite of magic being generally learnable and not evil or dangerously erratic, and why in worlds like Eberron do we not see more magic in the use of “mundane” warriors?

In my Eberron any “professional” soldier/mercenary/whatever will generally spend the time to learn a couple rituals and cantrips so they have enough magical grounding to use a combat wand or stave, and every nation has soldiers who can perform some apprentice level magewright tasks, at least, because every martial tradition recognized the practical benefits of doing so, outside of maybe ancient Dakaan.

Also, the world not viewing magic as evil of inherently dangerous sounds like a generalization eliding into a mono-cultural trait. What does it mean that "the world doesn't view" things a certain way? What percentage of the population does that mean? How reasonable is it to expect a very high percentage of the population to share the same belief and be correct at the same time?

Does the world view electricity as inherently dangerous or evil? No. There being pockets of groups who do doesn’t make the general statement false. We are not obligated to constantly provide caveats and addendums to every general statement we make.

I feel like there are a number of assumptions that many people default to in these discussions, which all boil down to "magic is just like technology":

1. Magic is generally safe to use.
2. Magic can be used by anybody.
3. Magic is not shackled to a particular scarce resource.
4. Magic offers practical benefits in every sphere of human life.

Take any one of these away, and there's no question why you'd have non-magic-using people. Arcane magic in Dark Sun, for example, violates #1 and #3: Magic is very unsafe, and it depends on a scarce and dwindling resource. (A lot of early D&D fiction also implies that magic requires inborn talent, violating #2; but I'm not sure if that's ever been explicitly stated in Dark Sun.)

I think you can take 4 away no problem, as long as it provides practical benefits to some common facets of life. 2, is also a matter of degree but also of things like “is it inherited?” and “is it purely inherent or do people without the spark or whatever just have to work harder and are more limited?” and especially “how common is the spark or whatever?”

But of course in the OP I do assume everyone can learn at least some magic, in hopes of giving the thread a little bit of direction.