Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8426233" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I'll freely admit I'd not read the middle of the thread, but by reading this, the question you're actually asking (what's needed to make people decide to not take magic) is the opposite of the one I was reading (why would people not take magic when there's no reason obvious in the setting not to).&nbsp; At the least, I think I can reframe what I was talking about in a more useful way in that context.I suspect what you need to do is to decide whether you're more interested in the question of what Doyalist (player based) or Watsonian (character based) reasons you want there.&nbsp; While they're not entirely disentangles, I suspect the Doyalist ones are going to be stronger on the whole (because they'll still likely matter to players who are very focused on character level design decisions, whereas the Watsonian ones are unlikely to matter strongly to those who&nbsp; make them primarily on how the character will play).(Though its still not irrelevant for me to note some players will simply decide not to take magic for reasons that may or may not be easily related to any reason on either level, simply because they have personal issues relating to magic in games in either direction that will trump anything else).An example of a Watsonian reason that might not impact some players at all is that magic is known or reputed to be a danger to your immortal soul--but in a game without resurrection, if that only matters after death some players will justify taking it anyway if its useful, because it has no practical impact on the play cycle, unless there's strong enough social impact from that fact that its effectively a vague mechanical penalty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8426233, member: 7026617"] I'll freely admit I'd not read the middle of the thread, but by reading this, the question you're actually asking (what's needed to make people decide to not take magic) is the opposite of the one I was reading (why would people [I]not[/I] take magic when there's no reason obvious in the setting not to). At the least, I think I can reframe what I was talking about in a more useful way in that context. I suspect what you need to do is to decide whether you're more interested in the question of what Doyalist (player based) or Watsonian (character based) reasons you want there. While they're not entirely disentangles, I suspect the Doyalist ones are going to be stronger on the whole (because they'll still likely matter to players who are very focused on character level design decisions, whereas the Watsonian ones are unlikely to matter strongly to those who make them primarily on how the character will play). (Though its still not irrelevant for me to note some players will simply decide not to take magic for reasons that may or may not be easily related to any reason on either level, simply because they have personal issues relating to magic in games in either direction that will trump anything else). An example of a Watsonian reason that might not impact some players at all is that magic is known or reputed to be a danger to your immortal soul--but in a game without resurrection, if that only matters after death some players will justify taking it anyway if its useful, because it has no practical impact on the play cycle, unless there's strong enough social impact from that fact that its effectively a vague mechanical penalty. [/QUOTE]

Verification