Why hasn't magic changed the world?

[Inu]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

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.

Well, different people have different tastes for homages. I prefer to set my licensed games in different time periods, or different areas. Blowing up a death star isn't going to win the war; lot of other heroes there, what are their stories?

 

And in any game where characters expect to gain XP and increase in power, yes, of course they'll be less powerful than the main heroes... at least to start with. Otherwise, if they start as powerful, they'll quickly become more powerful, in which case, it starts to conflict with the source. Who cares about Aragorn if there's this other ranger who's even more potent?

 

Admittedly, this isn't the same problem in LotR as it might be in other settings. While Aragorn was the chief of the rangers, Legolas was hardly the most powerful elf out there.

 

It's a matter of taste. While PCs should be important, I certainly don't see why they should be the most important thing around. If no-one else does anything important, that leads to the old problem of: 'Why doesn't the king get off his fat arse and save his own kingdom?' I also have no wish to play through the exact events of the main story; I'd rather do something else at the same time.

[Blue Jogger]

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 like to think of magic as bartering. You, as the mage, have spend time and effort (points) on having a spell. You sacrifice materials, time, and labor and you get an equivalent magic effort equal to the amount of time, labor, points and materials put into it.

 

If these forces aren't in balance, your players will let you know. I have some magic that is worth zero points and still the players won't use those spells (it's not worth the trade-off to cast the spell) and I have spells whose cost are so cheap that everyone has a spell to enchant a weapon to do more damage for a limited time (including the bad guys) since the cost is next to nothing compared to doing another die of killing damage.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Well' date=' different people have different tastes for homages. I prefer to set my licensed games in different time periods, or different areas. Blowing up a death star isn't going to win the war; lot of other heroes there, what are their stories?[/quote']

 

But the heroes also know that they can never contribute meaningfully to the Rebellion's ultimate victory. They cannot hand Vader a permanent defeat, much less turn him. That will happen in RoTJ and be undertaken by Luke Skywalker, so Vader has to remain in force until that time. Nor can a similar henchman of the Empire be created with any sense of verisimilitude - where was he throughout the movies?

 

The PC's can't defeat the Emperor - that will happen on the second Death Star when Vader turns, not before or after.

 

Your approach of setting the campaign in a different time period and/or different location is one answer, in my view. However, to me, that's still a "very clear homage" rather than the actual setting, as it avoids the areas/time periods the players are familiar with from the movies.

 

And in any game where characters expect to gain XP and increase in power' date=' yes, of course they'll be less powerful than the main heroes... at least to start with. Otherwise, if they start as powerful, they'll quickly become more powerful, in which case, it starts to conflict with the source. Who cares about Aragorn if there's this other ranger who's even more potent?[/quote']

 

Aragorn is also royalty. Can another PC be of royal blood, heir to a throne, and still be in keeping with the game? He can in my "not taken directly from literature" setting. It's more problematic in a direct Middle Earth game.

 

Coming back to Star Wars, every RPG version I've seen breaks the movies to some extent. In a Rebellion/New Hope time setting, there should be no other Jedi or Sith. There are only two Sith, Palpatine and Vader. Luke is the "last hope" of the Jedi (except for "there is another" Leia, I suppose, but she's also a movie character off limits to the PC's.) But every SW game I've seen provides for PC jedi.

 

It's a matter of taste. While PCs should be important' date=' I certainly don't see why they should be the [i']most[/i] important thing around. If no-one else does anything important, that leads to the old problem of: 'Why doesn't the king get off his fat arse and save his own kingdom?' I also have no wish to play through the exact events of the main story; I'd rather do something else at the same time.

 

Playing out the main storyline isn't a recipe for a great game either. And no, you don't have to be the most important. But I think, in most games, the players at least want the potential to be involved in "the main story" and possibly become "the important characters". There's a big difference between "they never achieve this" and "they know going in this is impossible to achieve".

 

When you think of Star Wars, do you think of Luke, Han and Obi-Wan, or Jek Porkins, Corporal Beezer and Cal Alder? Who do you see as adversaries - Jabba the Hutt, Darth Vader and Boba Fett or Ponda Baba, Chief Retwin and Zuckus? An homage game removes these characters as "known names" and allows the PC's the potential to become as important/powerful as the main characters from the base setting, and face adversaries of similar power and importance in that game world (whether that's "a longer or shorter time ago", or "a galaxy far, far away in another direction").

[McCoy]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

the Light of Earendil was useful' date=' 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.[/quote']

And when weilded by the Ringbearer turned out to be the key into (and as (if not more) importantly, out of) Cirith Ungol.

[input.jack]

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.

 

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)

 

Then theres no point in trying to make the world a better place. You cant. Misery just shifts to someone else.

 

Again, punch to the snoot of the GM.

 

Im just not an Orson Scott Card fan. I think a lot of his ideas are juvenile and poorly thought out. Especially in a gaming context.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

Then theres no point in trying to make the world a better place. You cant. Misery just shifts to someone else.

No, it just means you can't do it solely with magic.

 

On the point of technology/magic changing/not changing the world due to the limited number of people involved: It isn't just the number of people directly involved. It takes time for a new technology (or a new magical benefit) to propogate through the society. People didn't all suddenly become literate overnight when the printing press was invented. It took many years for automobiles to really catch on. etc. The "spread time" has become much shorter in modern times as the technology "fuels" itself: better communication and transportation technology allows technology to spread faster.

 

I would say the same thing could happen with magic. Just because a wizard in one village figures out a spell to cure one disease doesn't mean that they instantly know about it in another village fifty miles away.

 

Remember also the types of governments we're dealing with in fantasy worlds: mostly monarchies, dictatorships. Magic can change the social structure. If you're in charge of the social structure, why would you want it to change? Those with the power to change the world have no desire to do so - it would mean a risk of losing the power they have. Those who want to change the world don't have the power to do so - they're the poor and ingorant, possibly deliberately kept that way by the powers that be in some cases.

[Outsider]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

So it doesnt make the world a better place to heal Little Timmy in the village, and then balance that out by melting the man eating ogre who's hurt him in the first place?

 

Odd definition of making the world a better place that you have, if that doesnt count.

[input.jack]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

So it doesnt make the world a better place to heal Little Timmy in the village, and then balance that out by melting the man eating ogre who's hurt him in the first place?

 

Odd definition of making the world a better place that you have, if that doesnt count.

 

That only works if your Wizard can direct the "misery flow". Which was not an assumption I was making.

[Pentoth]

Re: Why hasn't magic changed the world?

 

In my world magic is very rare and when it does show it does make a huge impact. The mages guild litterally are responsible for creating and shaping the nation capital. In fact when war erupted it was magic that thwarted an invasion attempt. The invaders would burn down the sacred forrest in an attempt to demoralize their opponents. To their surprise the sacred trees wouldn't burn and what little damage was done to surrounding area grew back almost immediately. They were never able to march their army in. The troops refused to advance.

 

Another huge impact magic has is in population. I have a large populated mass of people where priests reside. Spells that protect mother and child during childbirth etc... are huge.