From: rrdjro@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Jonathan O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg: magic.ideas
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:45:04 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald) writes:

>I have mentioned before that I think magic is a very sticky kettle of
>fish, and it should not be added if not necessary.  

The main reason that magic is a 'sticky kettle of fish' is that 
'magic' is that it is generally very poorly defined.

[Please note, I have heavily edited the rest of this post to
emphasise certain points.]

>Some questions I feel ought to be addressed are:

>2.)  What types of magic are there
>        a.) in other role playing games?
>        b.) in books and stories?
>        c.) Which of these do we wish to model?

This is an important point.  In traditional stories and theatre, magic
is often used to set up the plot or resolve the plot.
It is the thing that gives the (generally single) hero or
heroine (or villian or villainess) the edge.

That's a bad model for roleplaying games.  It is _designed_
to unbalance the story for the goodies or the baddies.

In anthropology, things get even worse.  Magic represents
the unknown and unknowable.  It is the mystery of nature
or life, both good and bad.

>3.)  How is magic balanced with the rest of the game?

Only by modeling a modern version of magic can you hope to
have a system that allows for balanced magic.

This tends to dispell the mystery.  It destroys the
magic of 'magic', if you know what I mean.


>2.)     a.)  Magic can generally be divided into two or three types
>                in rpgs.  First and foremost is Spells.   These are
>                magical formulae recited to produce magical results.
>                By far the most common type of magic in rpg's.

>        Second would be what I refer to as "Faith Magics".  These
>                are prayers to gods.  They generally are handled 
>                like Spells, only their source is different, and
>                hence a slightly different mechanic is used.

>        Other types of magic used could be viewed as Mind Magics,
>                Enchantments, or Rituals.  These vary widely
>                between different game systems and I do not feel
>                like saying too much about them.

This seems to be trying to squash magic into convenient models, 
rather than modeling magic.

>        One thing I do not like about the types of magic in most
>                rpg's is that it is very strict and ordered.  Each
>                spell does exactly the same no matter who or what
>                is casting it.  Spells and Faith Magics differ only
>                by the specific mechanic used and what sorts of
>                things may be accomplished (_ie._ the effect of the
>                magic).  In so doing, _magic_ becomes a _science_,
>                and I do not believe that this is right.  
>        I feel there should be a certain uncertaincy to magic, even
>                among those who are extremely adept.  To me, magic
>                is the control of forces beyond the limit of human
>                knowledge, and as such, must contain a certain risk
>                and danger.  I do not think it should be a system
>                whereby a set of given inputs produces a desired
>                result for everyone, each time it is attempted.

I would like to see this idea developed even further.  Is there some
way that players with access to magic could make up what they want?
This could then be moderated by the GM.  Since the GM can make up
what the NPCs can do, the balance is left to fine judgement.

Unfortunately, this could not really be called a 'system'.

	Jonathan@RMIT.edu.au

Newsgroups: rec.games.design