Non-artificial ways of limiting access to magic...

[Sorloc]

I've quoted and cut and et cetera, but I've given up on that.
Those who are following the thread can figure it out.

I still maintain that most system-type restrictions on spellcasters are only in place to maintain 'play balance'. Several posters have expressed that this is sometimes, if not always, necessary, for (it seems) one or two reasons:

1) Spellcasters may be rare in the setting.
2) Non-spellcasters may feel impotent.

My answer to #1: Yeah, so? PCs in ANY game probably should not be considered to be a statistically correct cross-section of society. Those type of people get a job, get married, have kids, and die peacefully in their beds. PCs are NOT those people.
If spellcasters are rare in the world, then
(1) restrict magic to NPCs, or
(2) accept the fact that there will be a statistically improbable number of spellcasters in the group. This doesn't mean that there's a spellcaster behind every bush, it just means that 'birds of a feather flock together,' and you're more likely to see several travelling together than see a lone one.

Perhaps you want to say that people are mistrustful of magic - fine, but that's not a system mechanic issue; it's a roleplaying issue.
Perhaps you want to say that magic is very difficult or dangerous. Fine, but you better know WHY. If it's because it has a taint of evil, then again, that's a RP issue or a add-on mechanic issue. If it's just to restrict players from choosing spellcasters, then just go ahead and outlaw it for PCs and be done with it.

My answer to #2: (apologies - I think I may ruffle some feathers here, but I'm not trying to attack anyone, and if you give it a moment to think about it, you might agree I have a point) Any non-spellcaster who feels like they can't have fun playing in a group where one character has more power / ability might be suffering from a lack of focus. It's not a competition between characters, it's a 'role-playing' game. If you're trying to 'win' the game, you're not thinking in the right direction (IMHO). It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
As others have said, it's the GM's responsibility to see to it that all characters have their chance to shine. I don't see it being the system's responsibility to limit certain abilities so that the job is easier.
Granted, this does require a good GM, and good players (or a majority of them). If the GM does their job, though, there will be opportunity for the non-spellcaster to shine, and feel they are contributing.

It's the same as in most fantasy games, the player who doesn't choose to be an elf, and instead chooses a human, is severely hampered compared to his pointy-eared companions, unable to see in the dark, having to sleep, and other assorted benefits of elfdom. You CHOOSE to play what you choose to play. Not having fun? Choose something else to play.

A very good correlation in BRP is the Stormbringer races. With one Melnibonean in the group, you're looking at the same problem.

You simply can't compare mundanes and supernatural beings - that's why they have the prefix 'super'; means above average. They're NOT the same, you can't equalize them - and you shouldn't.
Just play the character, not the charace's stats - the way to truly 'win' the game is to have fun, and it just might be possible to have a goal that doesn't involve dealing more or as much damage / round as the next character.

[Lord Twig]

I agree with you on the first point. Regardless of how rare magic is, it will be common for the PCs to have at least one spell caster. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

I disagree with you on the second. You mention that it is a 'role-playing' game. I will mention to you that it is a role-playing 'game'. See the difference?

Sure it is up to the GM to ensure that everyone has fun, but why make it harder for him if it doesn't have to be?

I think part of the problem is that you are seeing spell casters as being "supernatural" and everyone else as being "mundane". Why does someone who wields a sword have to be mundane? Sure the Archmage is powerful, but the master swordsman in the group is so good he can cut a spell from the air as if flies toward him. Why not? It is a fantasy game after all.

[Triff]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

I think part of the problem is that you are seeing spell casters as being "supernatural" and everyone else as being "mundane". Why does someone who wields a sword have to be mundane? Sure the Archmage is powerful, but the master swordsman in the group is so good he can cut a spell from the air as if flies toward him. Why not? It is a fantasy game after all.

Conan vs. Gandalf. I know who I would put my money on!

SGL.

[soltakss]

I know people who are just as happy being able to cut a demon's head off as being able to turn them onto a pancake.

I also know people who just don't like using lots of magic no matter what PC they play.

Sometimes, I've been in a group where there was a large difference in ability ratings and that was far more of an issue than one person being able to cast magic and another being a fighter-type.

There are no general fixes for any of these issues.

What works for one group might not work for another.

You have to really see how your group works, what the dynamics are, how people like to play their characters and then work on fixing any problems that may be occurring.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by drohem

Cultural, religious, or societal morals and/or taboos are the way to limit or grant access to magic in any given game world.

Yes, thats it should be. I dont see the necessity to hardwire the power of magic to the rules, especially to generic rules. Its a waste of valuable energy to balance things out, just because some say that "everybody should have fun".

Fun? Please come on. My players and I dont have fun because magicians are well balanced in respect to fighters. They have fun because we play good adventures in a plausible world. And a good magical theory is one of the pillars of a plausible fantasy world. Thus each GM should first begin with the theoretical aspects of magic in this setting and not caring about the rules. Second are the implications of magic on the culture and the last should be some thoughts about rule mechanics.

Or does anybody think that a good game which is powered by the S&S spirit of Hyborea does need balanced magics? No. It needs dark magic as it is described in the Conan books for example. (which is everything else than balanced)

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Or does anybody think that a good game which is powered by the S&S spirit of Hyborea does need balanced magics? No. It needs dark magic as it is described in the Conan books for example. (which is everything else than balanced)

The maguses have no chance against Conan, so it's balanced I would say!

SGL.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

The maguses have no chance against Conan, so it's balanced I would say!

SGL.

I think conan has an excellent guardian angel with REH.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Cultural, religious, or societal morals and/or taboos are the way to limit or grant access to magic in any given game world.

This can seem artificial at face value, but it's not really.

Culture 'X' says that in order to become an apprentice, you must pass a test. This test translates in game terms to having a certain level in 'Z' skills or 'Y' characteristics.

Even if that works short term in the setting (and it is short term; controlling access to specific skills has never worked in the long term) there's no guarentee it'll actually work amongst a group of PCs unless all PCs are firmly set in their settings mores and not permitted to deviate therefrom.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Even if that works short term in the setting (and it is short term; controlling access to specific skills has never worked in the long term) there's no guarentee it'll actually work amongst a group of PCs unless all PCs are firmly set in their settings mores and not permitted to deviate therefrom.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about restricting access to skills?

Works in the short term, huh?

I don't think you understood my post because your response makes no sense to me.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

What are you talking about? Who said anything about restricting access to skills?

Works in the short term, huh?

I don't think you understood my post because your response makes no sense to me.

What I'm saying is that unless all your magic is, from a lack of a better term, "aware", and thus will only work for people who should have access to it, access to it will leak out sooner or later, the same way any other useful knowledge does; in particular, whatever their society says they should be doing, PCs will tend to teach other PCs things they think its useful for them to know.