Prep to Argue Magic Vs. Mental

[FTJoshua]

HISTORY: Special effects can hurt some PC's more than others, e.g. a vulnerability to fire. A PC could, therefore, take more damage from "magic" effects, or "mental" effects.

 

PURPOSE of thread: A friend and I are going to be debating magic vs. mental powers soon. I'd like to hear other opinions from Hero Gamers. It is not a debate that we can turn to the Hero rules to solve since it isn't necessarily a rules question.

 

I perceive mental and magic as being two entirely different things with vagely similar trappings. To me, a Mental power comes from the mind; it cannot function without an actual, tangible brain behind it. Magic, on the other hand, is more ethereal, intangible, more powerful, more dangerous, and less specific than a Mental power.

 

Rules-wise, the two function in much the same way; ego attacks, mental illustions, etc., are all easily used for Magical effects. But that doesn't make them the same thing in my opinion.

 

Thoughts?

[Monolith]

A lot of this depends on how the GM wishes to handle those SFX within his game. Personally, I see Magic as outside source of power, whereas I see Mental as an inside source of power. So a mage harnesses the mystical energy around him to achieve his goal. The mentalist, on the other hand, creates the energy within himself to do his bidding.

 

In my games Magic is more powerful, but can also get away from the mage from time to time. Mental energy is entirely dependent on the will of the mentalist, and thus can almost never get away from him.

 

I think the standard view of Magic in the Champions Universe also considers it to be an outside source. This is why superpowers wax and wane as mystical energy changes throughout the timeline.

[schir1964]

This has been discussed before. I started a thread about how GM's define Magic in thier campaigns. This was couple of years ago so you won't find it now.

 

Anyway, the GM has to decide if "Magic" is separate source of energy that Science can't produce, or simply Science being applied in a way not yet fully understood.

 

If Magic is separate thing altogether, then Science can never tap into it directly. Only living entities can directly tap into the Magical energy an use it. Such entities might be rare or common depending on what kind of campaign the GM wants. This doesn't prevent a person who can tap into the magical energy from creating objects that can help direct or have magic imbued into them for future use. However, these items all require a person who can Tap the magical energy directly in thier creation.

 

If Magic is simply a different field of Science with specific rules for tapping into it, then you can have normal people (non-magicians) create Magical Tools that can tap directly into that energy and use it. Magic Cars that run off of magical energy, etc...

 

Does this help any? (8^D)

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Lord Liaden]

Perhaps you might get some use out of the distinctions I've made for my own campaigns between my three main "sources of power": science, magic and psionics.

 

Science is the "physical laws" that our universe operates on. Science functions according to the same principles at all times; while sentient beings may tap into and manipulate its forces in various ways, those forces exist in and of themselves and function in a consistent manner which may be understood by anyone with sufficient acumen. The principles of science are essentially external to the sentient minds observing them.

 

Magic is the tapping of forces shaped by the will and imagination of a magician. Though these forces exist apart from the magician, he can alter the principles by which they function through the focussing discipline of ritual. The magician's trained mind is like a lense or prism for magic. Magic is thus both external and internal to a sentient mind.

 

Psionics is the imposition of the will on the perceivable world. Its power is derived solely from the individual mind, and its manifestation is limited only by the imagination and innate talent of its wielder; the laws of psionics are those that a mind gives to it. Psionics is therefore wholly internal to a sentient mind.

[schir1964]

Lord Laiden,

 

Why does your post remind me of Rolemaster RMSS? (8^D)

 

Very well thought out.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Arthur]

Two sources which discuss this very distinction:

 

Wild Cards, Book 1. There is a fictional scientific paper in it which indicates that every single superpower displayed by aces are generated by psionics.

 

Authentic Thaumaturgy, published by Steve Jackson Games. The author, one PEI Bonewits (self-styled "real" mage) states that psionics and magic are one and the same. When some scientists started investigating the possibilities of "powers of the mind", they, perhaps understandably, shied away from the term "magic". Therefore, they invented the term "psionics". It's not clear how conscious a decision this was.

 

The second position is most intriguing. "Psionics" and "Magic" are two words for the exact same phenomena - they are no different than "flame powers" vs. "fire powers".

 

This is utlimately a pure GM call. Either way is perfectly justifiable. I personally prefer to run things so they ARE the exact same. Dr. Strange is probably not going to be able to use a mental power on Professor X very effectively.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Prep to Argue Magic Vs. Mental

 

Originally posted by FTJoshua

I perceive mental and magic as being two entirely different things with vagely similar trappings. To me, a Mental power comes from the mind; it cannot function without an actual, tangible brain behind it. Magic, on the other hand, is more ethereal, intangible, more powerful, more dangerous, and less specific than a Mental power.

 

Rules-wise, the two function in much the same way; ego attacks, mental illustions, etc., are all easily used for Magical effects. But that doesn't make them the same thing in my opinion.

 

Thoughts?

 

Mental Powers are a specific type of game mechanic in the Hero System. Magic is a special effect. If you wanted something comparable, you might go with Psionic Powers vs. Magic.

 

From the standpoint of the Vulnerability, it really doesn't matter what the final SFX behind the Powers are; if the target has Vulnerability to X, and the incoming Power is X, it triggers the vulnerability.

 

Just to make it more confusing, you can make it a Vulnerability to mechanics or SFX as you choose. So a character could take a Vulnerability to Mental Powers, and would take increased effect from those Powers that are defined within the system as Mental Powers (game mechanics). Or he could take a Vulnerability to Psionic Powers (special effect), which would be any Powers that were psionic in origin, which could include Mental Powers but which might also rule out certain Mental Powers based on their SFX and/or Modifiers; for example, a Mind Control Based on CON (defined as a drug rendering the target extremely suggestible) would be a Mental Power but not a Psionic Power.

 

Your Magical Powers Vulnerability would be in the same boat as Psionic Powers above. You could have Mental Powers (game mechanic) that were also Magical Powers (SFX) because they were magical in nature.

 

Make sense?

[i3ullseye]

Heres the real issue.....

 

Creates versus Conjures.

 

Say you have a pyromancer and a pyrokinetic. Both can create a blast of flame. What you have to ask yourself is if they create the flame magically, or if they generate a real flame.

 

If they generate a real flame, then anyone vulnerable to flame takes extra damage, but it is not categorized as mental OR magical at that point.

 

If they create the flame out of their respectyive power type, then those vulnerable to both Flame AND their power type woudl take the extra damage. A magical flame is then both fire AND magic.

 

Now in my worlds, mental/psionic actually generate real world effects. Only the items that have a direct mind to mind, or mind to target, interaction count as mental. if it is defined as a pyrokinetic, it created real flame.

 

Magic in my worlds creates a magical force in the likeness of the effect. Magical fireballs are both magic AND fire.

 

And it makes a big difference.

[Heroman]

For my game, this is the kind of distinction I make between Magic and PSI, outside vs inside. As a reinforcemnt to the concept, I actually make Magic people buy an END battery (representing power 'channeled in') and PSI draw off their own END. I actually have 5 key different power styles: Hi-Tech, Magic, PSI, Spirit, and Virtual. Each have their own rules and interact with the different power styles in different manners (example: Hi-Tech and Magic do not play nicely). Most campaigns I have played support the 'magic is outside power, PSI is inside power' style.

[FTJoshua]

All very good points. A lot of those I hadn't thought of exactly, and this helps clear up why I have the opinion I have. Primarily I agree with the inside vs. outside aspect of the two.