Your Magical Preferences

[gamerprinter]

I've always preferred Vancian magic to spell point systems - half our gaming group went spell points to correspond to the psionicist and his psionic points, the other half stayed with strictly Vancian - though all our arcane casters prefer being sorcerers to wizards.

I'm might be changing my mind a bit, because I am really getting in to Ki magic, which at least in PF, works with a very small ki pool (for a point system.) I am working on 3 Ki classes for my upcoming setting publication, and looking to really expand the number of ki powers.

GP

 

[karlindel]

As others have mentioned, it depends on the campaign and the kind of campaign and setting that the players and I want. In short, my only strong preference is that magic have understandable rules and limitations (which may or may not be commonly known).

I do not have a strong preference for magic being delineated by source. I could have a lot of fun runing or playing in a world in which all magic is the same, but some societies think there is a difference (i.e. the church or government claims that their magic is divine, but their enemies' magic is the work of evil). I am also fine with a world that has a variety of different magical systems, whether they are related to one another or not.

I am not a fan of Vancian magic. That said, uses/day is one limiter that can be placed on magic, and is better than some others. Conceptually, I prefer more open magical systems that allow more latitude for creative use, and that have other drawbacks associated with them.

I have no strong preference for magical rarity or strength, having played and run games with rare but strong magic, rare and weak magic, common and weak magic, and common and strong magic.

I prefer for magic to be metaphysically explainable (i.e. it has rules that it must follow). I like the idea of magic being mysterious, but something that the characters (and players) can improve their understanding of over time.

I have no particular preference on technological tool vs. chaotic force, inasmuch as magic may lend itself to technology or may remain more of an art depending on how it works. Similarly, I have no preference on how magic users view magic, and it is likely that different magic users (and non magic users) will view magic differently.

 

[Desdichado]

double post

 

[Desdichado]

My ideal setting, and the ones I tinker with extensively, tend to have magic as an unnatural and blight-like force of the unnatural. I prefer a sword & sorcery, or even dark fantasy approach, where those who use magic are to be feared and chased out of town, if not lynched and then burned, just to ensure the safety of you and your children.

Those who dabble in such inhuman, corrupting influences are either corrupt themselves, insane, or so power-hungry and oblivious (or indifferent) to consequences that they deserve to be put down like the mad dogs that they are.

Think the paradigm of Call of Cthulhu transported to a fantasy setting.

That's my ideal magic system. Magic is never routine, or mechanistic. You learn one spell at a time, and there are risks inherent both in learning spells and in casting them.

That said, I tend not to gripe too much about things like D&D's magic system, although I do shy away from playing spellcasting classes.

 

[El Mahdi]

It goes without saying that magic forms an integral part of the fantasy setting. But I am curious as to what preferences people have towards the nature of magic in your games and why. People certainly have their preferences and expectations regarding magic.

Do you prefer magic that is distinctly delineated by source (i.e., arcane vs. divine vs. psionic), or do you prefer singular unified magic systems? Do you prefer Vancian magic or some other spellcasting method? Is magic prevalent or rare? Is it easily accessible to learn or is it a painstaking enterprise? Is it earth-shattering or subtle? Is it benign or malignant? Is magic metaphysically explainable or is it utterly mysterious? Is magic treated as a technological tool or as a chaotic force? How do magic-users view magic? How do non-magic-users view magic? Or perhaps it falls somewhere between all these or in other aspects that I did not include.

In short, how do you prefer magic to exist in your games?

As a player, I'm fine with the premise of the system or game we happen to be playing in. But, when I DM, I prefer to use my houseruled system for everything. Any adventure or genre I'm using, I'll adapt it to my system or my system to it. But as concerns magic and your questions, here's my answers:

I prefer a singular unified magic system. Magic is simply the mind focusing and manipulating the energies of the universe. Sources like Arcane, Divine, and Psionic, simply define where that energy comes from. But in the end, the energy and what it does is the same...whether Arcane, Divine, or Psionic.

I despise Vancian magic. (edit): At least unless it was in a campaign based on The Dying Earth series. In generic fantasy though, IMO it doesn't make logical sense, and simply stands out as a huge gamist construct to me. (end edit) I prefer a mostly at-will type system, so that magic works more like The Force in the Star Wars movies (but not in the RPG books).

Magic is prevalent and rare. Prevalent in that it's everywhere, it's the very fabric of the Universe. Rare in that very few people ever learn to sense it, let alone manipulate it.

Magic is both a painstaking thing to learn to use, and an accessable thing. It's accesable in that a player character can learn it and use it in just as equitable a manner as a Warrior can learn and use their combat skills. But, as far as my campaign world, Magic Users are extremely rare (so rare that they are mostly considered Myth).

Magic can be both Earth-shattering and subtle, both benign and malevolant...based entirely on the individual caster.

To a magic user, magic is an art and a science. Magic has mystery even to a caster, but also has a science and methodology to it's use. However, to a non-magic user, magic is completely mysterious.