Why hasn't magic changed the world?

[eternal_sage]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Also keep in mind that what makes for a good fiction setting doesn't always work for a gaming setting' date=' and the opposite is true as well.[/quote']

 

i fully agree with this, as a true, direct LoTR game would possibly be pretty boring (what with no magical trinkets, wizards, or wierd beasties to slaugter), and the DnD movies SUCKED, but were fairly accurate to the system...at least enough to be recognizable (that includes the stupid plots, btw)

[assault]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

a true' date=' direct LoTR game would possibly be pretty boring (what with no magical trinkets, wizards, or wierd beasties to slaugter),[/quote']

 

It would "possibly be pretty boring" with a bad GM. A good GM doesn't need any of this stuff.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

don't get me wrong, i like plot based games, but not everyone goes, hence the possibly. think of it as a limitation: Only Enjoyable For Non-DnD Players (-1).

 

no, hell, i would LOVE to play in a Silmarillion game (actually planning one, somewhat), but thats not my point. what i was trying to say (and obviously failed my Conversation roll) was that games are like books and movies, in that it is a personal taste issue. i do not, myself, like lots of crazy high fantasy DnD weirdness (like summoning horses to ride, or Heroes Feast, or Leomund's Tiny Hut for god's sake) but many do, and conversely, many people do not like my particular take on fantasy magic (see posts further back) because its "not fun". that's what i meant by the comment.

 

epic as a play style does take a gifted GM though.

[Pavanne]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Same reason technology took so long to change the world: too few people. You need buttloads of people bouncing ideas off each other to make something that's powerful enuf to change the world.

[McCoy]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

it recreates the idea of LoTR where even Frodo only had two cool items' date=' and he saved the entirety of creation. also lessens questions like these, and play balance.[/font'][emphasis added]

Um, Mithril armor, Sting, the Phile of Galadriel, Elven Cloak, Dude, that's four before we even get to the One Ring itself.

[Curufea]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

The dirt of Lothlorien, King's Foil (Athelas), the weapons of the Nazgul, the rings of the Nazgul, the Elven rings, the songs of Tom Bombadil, the short swords of the Barrow Downs, the Palantirs, etc..

[Kristopher]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Same reason technology took so long to change the world: too few people. You need buttloads of people bouncing ideas off each other to make something that's powerful enuf to change the world.

 

The technological advance of humankind has long rested on the shoulders of surprisingly few people, surprisingly interconnected with each other. The vast majority of the human population contributes very little to that advance.

[Kristopher]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Um' date=' Mithril armor, Sting, the Phile of Galadriel, Elven Cloak, Dude, that's four before we even get to the One Ring itself.[/quote']

 

The barrow blades, more elven cloaks, horns that can be heard at least 100 miles away, the reforged blade...

 

The LOTR saga is chock full of magic items.

[Inu]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My solution is that healing or curative magic uses 'white mana' and plague or poisoning magic uses 'black mana'.

 

These two are always start out in equal quantities, and the more white mana one uses, the more black mana replaces it. So, if you cure every wound and disease, then sooner or later some necromancer is going to empty all the graveyards and raise a zombie army or some plague mage is going to wipe out half the county with some disease. Then the bad guys run out of mojo and it goes back to square one again.

 

This keeps things in a sort of equilibrium.

I really like this idea. I think it can be made to work in an RPG setting. I'm currently running a game with fairly high magic, including PCs and NPCs who have access to D&D-style curative magic. I've already limited it with skill checks required (gotta know how to heal mundanely in order to heal magically), and chance of backlash (particularly for resurrection; you might just end up with the dead person still dead, and the cleric dead also. Or undead).

 

But I've consistently run into a problem: why don't priests, many of whom are genuinely concerned about the poor and the sick and the needy, constantly use their magic to heal people? Well, there's your answer: if they used their magic to do what they could do mundanely, they'd be feeding the Dark Side. An individual like an adventurer? Yeah, they can do whatever. But even then, they should use magic for a purpose (we need to heal this injury so you can keep fighting), not just convenience (yeah, you can take this week-long journey to rest up, or I can heal you magically right now...). So it doesn't overly restrict the PCs, but it also gives a reason why the priests of the world haven't cured every use.

 

It's a very nice balance. Thank you!

 

(As well as giving nice tactics and dilemmas. A plague strikes... do you cure everything, stopping the plague, and bolstering evil, or do you let people die? Do you stop just enough to prevent it becoming a pandemic? If so, who lives and who dies? YOU DECIDE! That's nasty. ^_- )

[Inu]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

The barrow blades, more elven cloaks, horns that can be heard at least 100 miles away, the reforged blade...

 

The LOTR saga is chock full of magic items.

I was about to go into that stuff. ^_- Yeah, there's lots there. Of course, most of it is present in the books because the people are extra-special. The Lothlorien elves had NEVER before lent any non-elves cloaks like that. Frodo's shirt was basically one-of-a-kind and freakishly valuable (the only other mention of mithril was the helmets of the fountain guard, if I remember right). So I'd guess that the average character sheet wouldn't need a lot of space for magical gear.

 

But personally, I quite like that. I'm a bit sick of D&D-style stuff, where your equipment matters more than your own personal abilities. I much prefer "I am a powerful hero, ph34r my massive skilz!" to "I am a powerful hero, ph34r my phat loot!" Both styles of play have their advantages, but I do prefer the former myself. =)

 

But there's always loot you can give away. In a game where you don't expect to find magical armour, you can make armour generally better, but restrict it more. so when you finally find a suit of full plate, it really IS like getting magical armour. And, of course, giving characters a special budget of points with which to buy personal abilities (such as special combat tricks or whatever) that would otherwise be the domain of magical items. I find that's a very good compromise.

 

There's just no reason a low-magic game has to be less fun than a high-magic one. =)

[Nolgroth]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

I always like the Ars Magica explanation; no permanent magick unless raw magick (Wis?) was used to make it permanent. Plus, Divine Will trumped magick. The rules allowed for some pretty powerful characters, but little of what they did lasted longer than them.

[Markdoc]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My favorite reason ever(Thanks to Orson Scott Card's book on how to write Fantasy and Sci-Fi)is that using magic causes diseases' date='birth defects,and all of the "bad" things that befall humanity.So while the spell cures Farmer brown of the Green Trots,Molly across town gives birth to a baby without arms just hands attached directly to it's shoulders or Little Timmy gets crushed by a meteor because a wizard makes the crops grow bigger.[/quote']

 

Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me, says Farmer Brown. I never liked little Timmy anyway.

 

Seriously, though, this raises some game balance issues. It makes magic, almost by definition "evil" since every time you use it you are hurting somebody else. That could be kind of cool if you wanted a setting where all magic was considered evil sorcery

(for my take on such a setting see here: http://www.geocities.com/markdoc.geo/Gaming_stuff/Grimoire/magic_systems.htm#Medieval%20Magic)

 

Alternately, though you could remove the "evil" taint by inflicting harm on the caster himself. I am using this effect specifically for the most powerful style of magic in my current FH game.

http://www.rpglibrary.org/settings/gothick_empires/entry.htm (see Magic of the Samadrian Heresy)

 

But you could arrange a less complicated version by simply setting the side effect to "transform: unluck" (the bigger the transform, the more dice of unluck). That way, casting a spell upsets the cosmic balance and if you do it too much (ie: cast a lot of spells without healing back the transformation damage) it'll zing back on you, one way or another. Likewise, little charms (only a few active points) won't have much effect whereas giant, location-transforming spells will have certain payback. That'd lead to a magic system a little like that of Earthsea, where Wizards can perform amazing feats, but mostly don't, because they fear the consequences.

 

cheers, Mark

[input.jack]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My favorite reason ever(Thanks to Orson Scott Card's book on how to write Fantasy and Sci-Fi)is that using magic causes diseases' date='birth defects,and all of the "bad" things that befall humanity.So while the spell cures Farmer brown of the Green Trots,Molly across town gives birth to a baby without arms just hands attached directly to it's shoulders or Little Timmy gets crushed by a meteor because a wizard makes the crops grow bigger.[/quote']

 

My opinion of that idea differs radically from yours.

 

I think thats the most wretched thing Ive heard for how to regulate magic.

 

Basically, that system means that any PC who casts spells has to do so -knowing- theyre causing misery.

 

Id want to sock the GM right in the snoot for that one.

[input.jack]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

The technological advance of humankind has long rested on the shoulders of surprisingly few people' date=' surprisingly interconnected with each other. The vast majority of the human population contributes very little to that advance.[/quote']

 

The slackers.

[Outsider]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My opinion of that idea differs radically from yours.

 

I think thats the most wretched thing Ive heard for how to regulate magic.

 

Basically, that system means that any PC who casts spells has to do so -knowing- theyre causing misery.

 

Id want to sock the GM right in the snoot for that one.

 

 

How about if misery remains constant in an uncaring world?

 

You don't causing misery if you cast a spell, you just move it around. Even better if you allow casters to hold a certain amount of misery as a credit or debit. Cure a wound today, inflict a wound tomorrow. Inflict a wound today, cure a wound tomorrow. If your misery bank is maxed out one way or the other, you cant cast any spells that dont move it towards neutral.

 

This model could lead to some ugly results also, of course. Prisoners and/or slaves might become 'misery dumps', allowing more beneficial magic to be cast on good, upstanding citizens. On the other hand, it would explain why many magicians go out looking for trouble (adventuring)... they're looking for people who deserve some misery! (bandits, man-eating monsters, etc)

[assault]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

The technological advance of humankind has long rested on the shoulders of surprisingly few people' date=' surprisingly interconnected with each other. The vast majority of the human population contributes very little to that advance.[/quote']

 

True, although this is sometimes exaggerated. It's interesting looking at how much "science" was actually understood by artisans well before upper class scientists "discovered" it. Boyle's Law is the classic example - brewers had been using the principle for centuries before it was "discovered".

 

In a magical world, that would suggest that a lot of magic would be known by hedge wizards before the "academic" wizards got hold of it and wrote down its principles. Of course, since the academic wizards are almost certainly members of the upper classes, they would probably frown on "hedge wizards" who showed signs of becoming excessively powerful.

 

Similar processes would tend to apply with respect to religious magic. You could play around quite a lot with the relationship between magical power and status within the organisational hierarchy. In some cases lower class "saints" might tend to rise to the top of the hierarchy, or they might be restricted to the bottom of the heap. Or, of course, both, since consistency doesn't need to be assumed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

I was about to go into that stuff. ^_- Yeah' date=' there's lots there. Of course, most of it is present in the books because the people are extra-special. The Lothlorien elves had NEVER before lent any non-elves cloaks like that. Frodo's shirt was basically one-of-a-kind and freakishly valuable (the only other mention of mithril was the helmets of the fountain guard, if I remember right). So I'd guess that the average character sheet wouldn't need a lot of space for magical gear.[/quote']

 

Since when are PC's "average characters"? To me, the biggest problem with licensed settings is that the PC's get kicked to the back of the bus. Sure, you can adventure in Middle Earth, but it's Frodo and Co that are the MAIN STORY - you guys can never be more than a sideline attraction.

 

Star Wars? Sure. But Vader and the Emperor are the Big Bads, and you can't really do much more than dent their plans - Luke and Co will do the heavy lifting and resolve the major plotlines.

 

In most RPG's, the PC's are the heros of the story. In licensed RPG's, the PC's often end up playing second fiddle to the heroes from the books/movies/etc. Either that, or those powergaming players want to be competetive with, or even superior to, the "real heroes", and they demolish the setting.

 

In my view, it's better to capture the feel of the setting in an homage, even a very clear homage, to the original but leave out the original's main characters and plotlines. Let the PC's be the heros of this story.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

ok, Frodo, was a bad example, although Boromir, Aragorn, Legolas.... hell, everyone but Frodo, are examples of what i meant. only a few magical trinkets for everyone not the lead character.

 

and even Frodo's gear, other than the mithril mail, was largely just for show. i mean, the mail protected him in every battle he was in, but Sting just glows when Orcs are around, and has no other beneficial properties (unless it hurt Orcs especially like Glamdring did... not sure on that, been awhile since i read the Hobbit). and thats a cool weapon, imho, because it doesn't stack stupid amounts of damage on top of it's own, it just glows. much better than a +3 Flamming Shocking Icy Longsword of Speed or some other such nonsense.

 

the Light of Earendil was useful, but was mostly just a nightlight which a certain giant spider hated, because of her inherited fear of the Silmarillion, and not because it actually hurt her.

 

Narsil/Anduril was never said to be magical. it was LEGENDARY. it was simply a Masterwork Longsword (+1 to Attack, not to Damage ). if i remember correctly, that is, again its been years since i read the whole series.

 

the Elven Cloaks were less magical in the books than the movies, in that they were more modern camo-ish that actually "blending into their surroundings so that Haradrim two feet away cannot tell its fabric not rock", but again, its been awhile since reading, so the rock scene may have happened, and i've tried to negate it from my memory

 

so on, and so forth. sure, their were tons of gear in LoTR, but none of it even equivilates to 5th level DnD treasure, and these guys were level 20 at least! not that that is bad, but i've had players in the past who were just in it for the loot. drives me crazy, which is why i've decided (along with my wife) to largly remove that aspect from our Fantasy HERO games, and play DnD more along the Iron Heroes route. more "PCs have cool abilities" less "PCs have cool gear".

 

in the Oriental Fantasy game i've been hammering out (the original was DnD, which was a nightmare) i've strictly limited what effects can be used for spells (no resurection, no teleportation, no summonings) and capped the AP at 50, which is working out great, as this makes them a little more powerful than a standard warrior, but only by about 1 DC (before STR bonuses on weapons, of course, but the spells can still hit numerous people, while a sword can't).

 

many non-battle type spells are actually roleplaying moments, where the PC has to track down a kami, convince him to help him out, and then satisfy whatever demands the kami may inflict.

 

to enchant a weapon, it must be made by your hand, find a kami willing to inhabit it, then perform a week long ritual. and the ritual can only be done at certain times of the year, limiting the item production of one master forger to six items or so a year, on average. this in turn raises prices, and keeps such items rare and important.

 

its very much a Mage: the Awakening/Werewolf: the Forsaken/Legend of the 5 Rings lovechild, but its working out well, and the flavor is great.

[JackValhalla]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

How about if misery remains constant in an uncaring world?

 

You don't causing misery if you cast a spell, you just move it around. Even better if you allow casters to hold a certain amount of misery as a credit or debit. Cure a wound today, inflict a wound tomorrow. Inflict a wound today, cure a wound tomorrow. If your misery bank is maxed out one way or the other, you cant cast any spells that dont move it towards neutral.

 

Hmm... Law of Conservatation of Angst and Misery? Nice thought, that... Mind if I borrow that idea for something I'm working on?

[eternal_sage]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

i think the idea of spreading around the misery to be very interesting, especially for a campaign in which the good guys. what will they do when they discover the real way magic works? plus it gives lots of cool stuff for bad guys to do that is really heinous in their quest for power. really neat.

[Tom Carman]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

But you could arrange a less complicated version by simply setting the side effect to "transform: unluck" (the bigger the transform' date=' the more dice of unluck). That way, casting a spell upsets the cosmic balance and if you do it too much (ie: cast a lot of spells without healing back the transformation damage) it'll zing back on you, one way or another. Likewise, little charms (only a few active points) won't have much effect whereas giant, location-transforming spells will have certain payback. That'd lead to a magic system a little like that of Earthsea, where Wizards can perform amazing feats, but mostly don't, because they fear the consequences.[/quote']

 

I'm reminded of Barbara Hambly's novel Dragonsbane, in which the scale of a magic spell's effect had no relation to the power or skill of the caster. The problem was that the universe tends to be a bit lazy about implementing the spell, taking the path of least resistance. (I haven't read that book recently, so my recollection may be a little off.) A woman cast a spell to screw over the owner of a gold mine, and (surprise, surprise) a dragon suddenly decides that it would make a dandy new lair. Magic is kind of a "Monkey's Paw" scenario, and a good wizard's spells are designed to carefully limit both the scope and allowed methods of the magical effect.

[Hainted]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My opinion of that idea differs radically from yours.

 

I think thats the most wretched thing Ive heard for how to regulate magic.

 

Basically, that system means that any PC who casts spells has to do so -knowing- theyre causing misery.

 

Id want to sock the GM right in the snoot for that one.

 

He was using it as a story basis.The characters eventually find out the truth about magic and must decide whether to reveal it or continue using it.I like the idea of magic costing something from the caster or the world around them as it makes the wizard think before using magic to solve everything(Like the curse of Chaos in the Warhammer setting, the spell works but mutates you or causes some other random side effect when you roll doubles.)

[assault]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

He was using it as a story basis.The characters eventually find out the truth about magic and must decide whether to reveal it or continue using it.

 

A difficult choice, obviously: "My character spent half his points on being able to use magic. Either he throws half his points away, or he doesn't. Oops. Sorry world. Enjoy the misery. I know I will."

 

OK, it could be run successfully, but it would have to be carefully negotiated with the players. Preferably before they designed characters who would be hosed by it.

[Spence]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

My favorite reason ever(Thanks to Orson Scott Card's book on how to write Fantasy and Sci-Fi)is that using magic causes diseases' date='birth defects,and all of the "bad" things that befall humanity.So while the spell cures Farmer brown of the Green Trots,Molly across town gives birth to a baby without arms just hands attached directly to it's shoulders or Little Timmy gets crushed by a meteor because a wizard makes the crops grow bigger.[/quote']

 

I would rather go with some kind of side effect or drawback affecting the mage. Yes, a mage can do great feats. But the world will exact a price to restore the balance. Small stuff uses END. But big stuff could permanently burn CON or BDY. And if you fail to maintain control of a major working, the backlash can be deadly, not only to you but your surroundings too.

 

But in the end all magical workings use life force, with anything above hedge magick needing lifeforce from a sentient being.

 

Good Magi use thier own. Black Magi figure out how to use other peoples, though doing so has it's own unforeseen costs. Heck vampires could really be a type of Black Mage, and the cost payed was forgetting who they really were and the need to take others lifeforce by drinking blood.

 

Just a thought. And the slide toward the Black can make for some interesting Role Play

[Inu]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

ok, Frodo, was a bad example, although Boromir, Aragorn, Legolas.... hell, everyone but Frodo, are examples of what i meant. only a few magical trinkets for everyone not the lead character.

 

and even Frodo's gear, other than the mithril mail, was largely just for show. i mean, the mail protected him in every battle he was in, but Sting just glows when Orcs are around, and has no other beneficial properties (unless it hurt Orcs especially like Glamdring did... not sure on that, been awhile since i read the Hobbit). and thats a cool weapon, imho, because it doesn't stack stupid amounts of damage on top of it's own, it just glows. much better than a +3 Flamming Shocking Icy Longsword of Speed or some other such nonsense.

Sting, Glamdring and Orcrist were found as a matched trio. Sting was exactly the same as the others, just smaller (the others glowed when orcs were near, too). It did indeed hurt creatures of the dark (including Shelob) better than ordinary weapons; only Glamdring or Orcrist could have injured Shelob like Sting did when she sat on it.

 

Actually, it contained the light of one of the Silmarils; Earendil's star IS a Silmaril, the last one shining freely. It actually hurt hurt, not just psychologically -- and it sure wasn't psychology that led it to destroy the watchers of Cirith Ungol. =)

 

Narsil/Anduril was never said to be magical. it was LEGENDARY. it was simply a Masterwork Longsword (+1 to Attack, not to Damage ). if i remember correctly, that is, again its been years since i read the whole series.

Narsil was never explicitly magical... but it did 'burn with the flame of the sun and moon' in the battles of the Last Alliance, etc etc. That may have been metaphorical, or shining because it was very reflective. Even if it had no obviously magical properties, where dwarves and elves are concerned, there's no difference between a masterwork weapon and a magical one. The elves don't 'weave spells' into a weapon; that's what the Numenorean crafters did to make the Westernesse blades the Hobbits used. The just... do it. Dwarves are likely to be similar -- In D&D terms, Narsil's likely a +5 (or higher!), keen, ghost touch sword.

 

the Elven Cloaks were less magical in the books than the movies, in that they were more modern camo-ish that actually "blending into their surroundings so that Haradrim two feet away cannot tell its fabric not rock", but again, its been awhile since reading, so the rock scene may have happened, and i've tried to negate it from my memory

The book explicitly said that the cloaks wouldn't have protected them on the run to the gate. They did, however, prevent the Rohirrim from seeing them five feet away when they were running past. Definitely more than merely blending in colour-wise. Was magic involved there (or what we'd call magic. The elves HAD no word for magic, other than the sorcery practiced by the Enemy).

 

so on, and so forth. sure, their were tons of gear in LoTR, but none of it even equivilates to 5th level DnD treasure, and these guys were level 20 at least! not that that is bad, but i've had players in the past who were just in it for the loot. drives me crazy, which is why i've decided (along with my wife) to largly remove that aspect from our Fantasy HERO games, and play DnD more along the Iron Heroes route. more "PCs have cool abilities" less "PCs have cool gear".

Now on that note, I agree. The high-level characters in the books certainly had a lot less gear than equivalently-levelled D&D characters. Which ain't a problem! Lotta ways to play fantasy, loot-based is only one. And in my opinion, it's the most boring, and leads to an undervaluing of the items themselves.

 

I've just put a lot of research into running a potential LotR game (including Steve Long's Decipher core book), and so I wanted to dispel some misconceptions about the magicalness of the items there. ^_- There certainly WERE magical items -- they were just rare.