Jump to content

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


NickMiddleton

Recommended Posts

OK, spun out of recent discussion in the Q&A thread (and as a counter to the ludicrous inference that ALL such rules are solely artificial game restrictions to balance warriors against mages) - what settings have people used / considered that coincidently restrict the frequency of mages / magic use in play?

I always liked the Stormbringer 1st edition INT+POW > 32 idea: that to be a Sorcerer you just fundementally had to be exceptionally intelligent and strong willed / magically attuned (an dthat to progress to higher power levels you had to become inhumanly Intelligent and Powerful).

Another idea I'd really like to try in a BRP game comes from the D&D setting the Scarred Lands - arcane magic taps the raw stuff of magic and thus casting spells releases a LOT of heat and even having spells memorised raises ones body temperature. So casters in the setting never wear armour or even heavy clothing (providing a neat explanantion for all tha tFrazetta art work...), even in cold climates and there are rules for penalising characters who do with fatigue from over-heating.

I've toyed with converting the D&D Dark Sun setting to RQIII for a while. Sorcery in that setting is powered by bio-magical energy gathered from the living entities surrounding the caster (primarily plants but really powerful, sophisticated sorcerers can draw energy from living creatures). Drawing energy too quickly kills the organic life and sterilises the area (hence the sobriquet "Defiler" for Sorcerer's who cast so brutally). Since "Defilers" are hated (and feared) in the setting, using Sorcery (even as a "Preserver", who casts carefully, such that they draw energy slowly enough that the surrounding life is NOT destroyed) is a risky proposition, and achieving high power effects highly dependent on the surrounding flora...

My Ulfland RQIII campaign used the RQIII rules pretty much straight, but also emphasised the importance of literacy in learning Sorcery, and it's scarcity in the setting - with very few people able to read, and reading being an essential underpinning of the Sorcerer's art there were just very few Sorcerers.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked the Discworld (books not RPG as I've not seen the RPG) approach that you can either do it or you can't. That and the idea of chain-smoking, mysoginistic, 100 a day wizards who live for the next meal and don't have to pay in shops ("Pointy Hat Sir? That'll do nicely.")

You could make magic use dangerous, culturally taboo, illegal, difficult to learn, restricted to certain families, available only to those who are talented or whetever you want, but what happens when a player says "I really want to play a Sorcerer/Priest/Wizard/Magic User/Whatever"? Do you say "No, they are very rare in this setting" or do you set out a certain number of goals that the PC must do to use magic?

After all, PCs are very rare. They are adventurers and are the rarest kind of adventurers as they are, by and large, successful ones and don't end up eaten or naked in a ditch. So, Magic Users are rare, PCs are rare, therefore PCs are ......

Whaddya mean it doesn't work that way?

Look at modern day fantasy fiction. Magic use may be rare in the books, but one of the Heroes is invariably a magic user. That's what people like to play.

No matter how often people try to move away from stereotypes, people still want to play the same kind of characters. In our game, one player really loves playing shamans, another loves playing trader/scouts, another loves playing fighters and I love playing berserkers.

Magic Users are one of the broad stereotypes that people like to play, so I don't see why you'd want to restrict them.

Unless, of course, it is a question of restricting magic in general. But, even then you have the problem that as long as there is some magic in the world, some people are going to be able to use it and PCs are going to want to be in that group of people. Knowing PCs the way I do, if a PC wants something then a PC is going to get it despite what the GM wants.

So, perhaps banning it completely is the trick, but that restricts the fantasy element quite a lot.

Just Say Yes to Magic Use and have spells being bandied about left, right and centre. It's far more fun that way.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good reason to balance magic users against other characters, is that those who are not interested in playing magic types are put totally in the shadow. Play aint that fun if one character is extremely more powerfull than the rest of the group. In BRP though, not wearing armor is pretty lethal, at least if you don't have some roundt the clock magic defense spell up.

SGL.

Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub!
b1.gif 116/420. High Priest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More seriously I agree with both of you: one needs lots of setting detail to explain why Mages haven't utterly dominated the setting (unless of course they have...), but those ar eseparate from addressing what its like in play.

Now I think you can make a wildly imbalanced party work quite easily - some of the most fun I've ever had in RPG's was playing mundane humans around mages in Ars Magica and many other games have some degree of discrepancy in PC power level. Magic free PCs are not a problem either: I've had no complaints from players in various Fafhrd & the Mouser-esque BRP games I've run where basically none of the PC's had any significant access to magic, but it existed in the setting (an dit's FAR easy to control th epower level in such circumstances of course).

What I most like with "magic" is that it feels part of the setting: the little wrinkles that evoke its particular world. And I dislike "ubiquitous" magic where it is ubiquitous to the point it ought to radically affect the culture (most D&D settings). frankly, any man can pick up a sword or bow - I like mages being a bred apart. Of course, I also like the whole "simple prayers to the Spirits" feel one can doing with RQIII style near universal access to Spirit Magic as well...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if one sees magic like in a D&D setting as technical tool to achieve the groups goals then balancing may be necessary. But if at all, its only for D&D fans or such groups which play a D&Doid game just with a different rule set :)

I prefer the other way. First comes the theory behind magic, then how the people see magic and only finally (the least important part in magic creation) comes the spells or whatever the magic looks like in this particular setting. Thus I can avoid unlogical inconsistencies like "balancing" in my games.

I think stormbringer1st ed. is an excellent example how to present magic:

-the theory behind magic is that chaos enables it

-every anti-chaos force therefore should shun magic

-only an elite can use it - 32 POW+INT is really difficult to roll for humans

-if you are one out of 100 PCs who rolls this and who is pro-chaos then you can use it. The problem is that you have to practice it in secret in most YK nations or maybe hide it to other (lawful) PCs and in the end you will have lost your soul to the chaos gods.

the above example is if the GM wants to use the rules as they are written in SB1. These rules let sorcerers be very rare in SB and while more powerful than other players there are serious inherent trade offs and its not clear if a PC wants to that magic power at all, even if he fullfills the other requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with BRP most of my use of the system has been RQ varients, and of course in RQ, mages in general _aren't_ rare. When using an alternate system for magic (a skill based color magic system), the primary way was to have multiple skills, and the skills be quite difficult (I don't have the issue some people have with skills being of varied difficulty); it still tended to make some low-level dabbling common, though. If I wanted to take a different approach, I'd probably have magic be like weapons; have a certain level of Int minimum, and if you didn't meet it you'd have substantial penalties on using magic even compared to someone who had the same theoretical skill level as you; you had some of the same academic understanding, but simply couldn't think clearly and fast enough to deal with the practical variables as he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of stopping magical arms races you could go down several other routes:

1] don't bother with magic points but assume that magic is reliant on the 'life force' of the caster, every time you use it it drains your strength, the more powerful the magic the more it affects you, so small magics drain Fatigue points/levels/whatever !, larger ones might knock off hit points or possibly even CON. Of course baddies will sacrifice other people ( whilst cackling evilly of course ). there's no point casting a mega powerful spell if you keel over dead the next minute.....

2] maybe the only magic that doesn't do this comes from the gods i.e divine magic, which of course has a whole load of restrictions built in, eg don't observe the right moral structure of your religion ?, haven't been down the temple recently ? well maybe your magic isn't going to work after all...

3] maybe magic is simply unreliable yeah it can be powerful, but as often as not it simply doesn't work,or goes wrong. You might spend mucho magic points for the whole spell to go 'whimper' rather than 'BANG' or possibly it goes BANG

and you're just a charred mass ( as is every thing in a 20ft radius ), so maybe it's just easier all round to learn how to use a sword.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good reason to balance magic users against other characters, is that those who are not interested in playing magic types are put totally in the shadow. Play aint that fun if one character is extremely more powerfull than the rest of the group. In BRP though, not wearing armor is pretty lethal, at least if you don't have some roundt the clock magic defense spell up.

SGL.

In theory, I certainly understand this POV. However, SB1-3 is the most unbalanced RPG I'm familiar with and yet it provided more hours of fun than any game, other than RQ, that I can remember. So my experience is that balance between spell casters and noncasters isn't really that big of deal in practise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all of the ideas for limiting magic that I've seen, I like the attempts that Corum made for corruption from exposure. I like the idea of having bigger magic effects have greater and greater chances of permantly warping the character mentally or physically. I'd allow stats to modify that chance, so that there's a natural reason to want a really high INT/POW to mitigate the odds of something nasty happening to a spell caster, but still have that chance hanging there. If you want more magic in the setting, make it so that small spells have no chance of corruption and that it kicks in at some predetermined level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by soltakss viewpost.gif

...They are adventurers and are the rarest kind of adventurers as they are, by and large, successful ones and don't end up eaten or naked in a ditch...

We obviously play very different styles of BRP...

:P

Nick Middleton

You meet a bandit, he attacks you, you kill him, you strip him of his armour and throw him into a ditch.

What did you think I meant? Oh, hmmm, perhaps occasionally .....

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, I certainly understand this POV. However, SB1-3 is the most unbalanced RPG I'm familiar with and yet it provided more hours of fun than any game, other than RQ, that I can remember. So my experience is that balance between spell casters and noncasters isn't really that big of deal in practise.

I'd say that probably says more about the people you played with than the system involved, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all of the ideas for limiting magic that I've seen, I like the attempts that Corum made for corruption from exposure. I like the idea of having bigger magic effects have greater and greater chances of permantly warping the character mentally or physically. I'd allow stats to modify that chance, so that there's a natural reason to want a really high INT/POW to mitigate the odds of something nasty happening to a spell caster, but still have that chance hanging there. If you want more magic in the setting, make it so that small spells have no chance of corruption and that it kicks in at some predetermined level.

In my experience, except for particularly self-immolating players, that just means that most people never use the levels where its a problem, and tend to resent it as a mechanic because the GM can use it freely (as he can write up another NPC of whatever power level he wants without concern) while the players in practice, can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the key issue isn't really about balancing the power of the

characters, but insuring that each player can have fun and contribute to the session. In other words "niche protection".

As long as each character has some ability that they can do better than the others (or better than the magical substitute) then it doesn't really matter if the wizards can dish out a lot more damage.

Of course, if Wizards CAN dish out lots more damage, they become the number one target and usually end up being the first ones hit when attacked. That in itself can make he other characters more useful. If foes start doing massed arrow fire on mages to stop them from unleashing powerful magic, parity is achieved. Ars Magica doesn't have Protection/Damage Resistance, and so mages rely on Shield Grogs.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While that can work after a fashion, I'm not sure that making fighting specialists feel that their real function is to protect the mages so they can do the real work is an ideal solution.

Not in an of itself. As long as the campaign does not revolve around combat ala D&D, then aqny sort of "niche" will work. For instance, in one SB campaign I ran, the Melnibonean passenger and the captain of the ship he was on had a disagreement of the terminal kind.

The PC with Shiphandling proved to be very valauable. Just give the character something else to do that is important besides combat, and then combat won't be so important to the group.

Even with Magic World, mages are limited by thier POW. Make them spend a lot of POW in a short time, and they run out of energy. Even a Magic World wizard with a 17 POW and POW 17 staff can "only" throw a dozen 3d6 damage spells before being utterly wiped and defenseless.

Thorw a couple of quick encounters back to back and the mage starts to run out of ability. Not just for offense, but in all areas of magic.

A good warrior doesn't loose ability as quickly. Barring injuries and normal fatigue, he can fight at full effectiveness all day long.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in an of itself. As long as the campaign does not revolve around combat ala D&D, then aqny sort of "niche" will work. For instance, in one SB campaign I ran, the Melnibonean passenger and the captain of the ship he was on had a disagreement of the terminal kind.

The PC with Shiphandling proved to be very valauable. Just give the character something else to do that is important besides combat, and then combat won't be so important to the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here my opinion. I like to have several types or schools of magic in the worlds I run from the powerful sorcerers and wizards of legends to the village wise woman who practice folk magic( Or as it used to be called spirit magic) and also magic from Priest and divine sources. Your Powerful wizard is similar to your specialized surgeon who very good at what he does , but his training does not leave time for much else while your village wise woman is more like an EMT who has time to learn other skills as needed. Your average warrior may not have time or ability to learn sorcery , but could perhaps pick up some folk magic to even things out when his sword skill is taken into account.

If magic truly worked chances are different cultures and people would use it in different ways ,or at least that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

BRP Ze 32/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done."

George Carlin (1937 - 2008)

_____________

(92/420)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

30/420

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! :happy:

SGL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...