Guns in a Fantasy Settings: Tips and Tricks for a GM

[Scott Ruggels]

Resident gun nut, here.  The thing one is talking about, with Civil war era weapons is that those weapons (The Three Band Enfield and the Model 1861 Springfield, both in .58 cal. Minie Ball projectiles) were at the end of the development cycle for muzzle loaders and  the prepackaged paper cartridges invented by the British, and perfected by the Americans prefigured brass cartridge weaponry, very soon (like months) after the end of the Civil War. Loose powder and patched ball  could be reloaded by a trained infantryman to shoot 3 times a minute. paper cartridges added one more time per minute, or so.  The biggest effect on accuracy, were first, tight fitting ammunition, then Rifling, and then projectile shape, going from spheres of lead to pointed projectiles.  the Civil War era "Rifled Muskets", were very accurate, being mechanically capable to hit a 22 inch target at 300 yards or more. the problems with muzzle loaders were of course the slow reload times, as well as the fact one had to stand up, and stand still whioe reloading (Low to no DCV?), and it's sensitivity to weather conditions, or water immersion.

 

With the adoption of the cartridge fed breech loader (Taking the same 3 band Enfield, and turning it into the Snider conversion, and the same Sprinfield Rifled Musket, and turning it into a trapdoor springfield), boosted the rate of fire to once every  few seconds, or in Hero terms probably one reload and fire per phase, and yes one could now reload on the move, or reload from cover or prone positions. The difference was notable, only a few years after the Civil war, when Prussia adopted the Dreyse "Needle" rifle, and the Austrians still had the muzzle Loading Lorenz  rifled musket.  The Prussians won a decidedly one sided victory.

 

A few years after that, the Turks at the siege of Plevna, held off a numerically superior force using a mix of single shot Peabody Martini rifles, and American made Winchester Lever actions to resist attackers for a very long time, which started a run on Magazine rifles, so that by 1875, ten years after the Civil War ended, militaries in Europe were adopting magazine rifles, where the rate of fire climbed to one shot per action. by 25 years after the end of the Civil War, the first semi automatic pistols came on the market in Germany, and you have seen the rest in movies and television.

 

What prompted that explosion in technological  progress, similar to the  progress we have just seen with semi-conductor based technology in our lifetimes, was the industrial capabilities of the first world, first with consumer goods, and then military equipment, both falling into standardization and parts interchangeability, as well as the ability to communicate ideas through books and magazines, and by travel.

If you are talking about a high fantasy background, you will not have the  industrial capability (Except if you are from dwarven lands), and the communication. This is pre-enlightenment, and pre-industrial societies, where guilds controlled knowledge and crushed competition, and wondrous and nigh unto magical firearms may be available, but as single, or matched pairs, made one at a time by secretive craftsmen who value a Royal endorsement as much, if not more than money.  Any of the ides that followed the early matchlocks and flint locks might be available to various sages or guilds, but the production rate would be slow and there would be nothing in common between the various arms, except powder, and maybe shot size if you are lucky.  Even a run of simple flintlock, smoothbore, muzzle loaders would have a fair amount of variation among them, and a run of 100 might take  a smith  several months to make, even if he had jigs, dies and special tools to make them in batches. The more labor put into the weapon, the better it might be, but also a much higher cost, as it's made by a professional guildsman, rather than turned out by peasant labor. the highest achievement of the firearms art, before Eli Whitney, would have been the puckle Gun, and there were four made, and even if it was a multi shot weapon, there was still a delay between shots to line up the chambers to the single barrel, and crank them shut and fire them. It was not a machine gun. 

Good sources for early firearms technology can be had on YouTube these days, with Ian McCollum's "Forgotten Weapons" Channel, or "British Muzzle Loaders", and "Cap & Ball".

 

Damages for  early firearms firing a  ball of 1/2 in. or greater, may be around 2.5D6 RKA with them climbing up wards adding 0.5 D6 per pound of  weight of the shot so a 6 lb cannon ball would be around 5d6k. Loading and firing a cannon would take a crew of men one turn to fire.

Also remember that taking actions to set, brace, and aim, would increase accuracy, but also increase the time between the last shot and the next shot.  So unless the firearm has multiple barrels, it would be unlikely to get off more than one shot in a turn. (depending on the character's speed, though).

Hope this helps.

[Scott Ruggels]

There are also stories of Zulu warriors being fed various drugs to make them fearless, faster or more resistant to pain. It would be easy to write up some combat drugs for use by medieval 'shock troops'. E.g. CON - Only to prevent being Stunned.

After the Spanish/ American war. the U.S. took possession of the Philippines, and were then up against the "Moros", a band of islamic fighters from the southern end of the archipelago.  At the time, the U.S. Army was transitioning from a frontier  guard force, into a force of international projection, much like the Navy has in the past few years. In doping so, the Army gave up their .45 Long Colt   revolvers, for a more modern revolver chambered in the new .38 cartridge.  Well the Moros, would wrap themselves with tarred hemp,  smoke a few bowls of the untarred variety, and charge screaming at the bluecoats in the jungles, waving machetes. The US troopers would fire at the charging natives, often emptying their revolvers into them, before getting cut down.  So, if you shoot the fellow and he still kills you with a blade before he bleeds to death, technically, he still wins.  The army got as many of the old, slower to load Colts in .45, and  the .38 Revolverw were relegated to reserve status tyhemselves, while the Army started pistol trials that eventually gave us the M1911 Pistol.

 

The British used Hollowpoints in their Snider conversion rifles, as a way to insure that who ever they went against would lose a limb, and the American .45-70 rifles had a slogan of "Never  left a wounded Indian".   So yeah  big bullets are the answer.

[Scott Ruggels]

 

And I don't see how guns would remotely pose a risk to magic dying out unless one was specifically writing to that scenario - after all, just because we have guns doesn't mean we don't give soldiers knives too. Or put another way - even if all magic can do is let people shoot lasers out of their eyes once a day.... you don't think that's a useful tool to have on hand?

 Why would magic die?  If anything, I'd see magic getting incorporated into the manufacture and use of such weapons.  In Game of Thrones, if Valerian Steel was made by the heat of the breath of dragons, would this not help in the making of high quality steel springs and barrels?   Chiseling or printing runes into the lead projectiles to produce various effects once they hit. Making the blackpowder burn slowly, and without smoke?   All that one would desire in a tactical firearm could be granted by magic, and the minds that come up with the solutions to the needs.

[Scott Ruggels]

Guns are different because in reality they eventually rendered all melee weapons and armor obsolete (militarily speaking).  No one would pretend that spears and longswords are competitive with modern repeating firearms in real life.

 

But because we still want melee weapons and armor in our fantasy game, it would help to figure out a way to balance them with guns, both tactically and in terms of campaign effects.  The usual method is for magic to blunt the effectiveness of firearms and/or boost hand weapons and armor to match.  Exactly how this is accomplished can depend a bit on the prevalence of magic in the campaign.  If magic is everywhere, guns kind of become just another focus.  If magic is uncommon, guns probably need to be fiddly or rare to balance them.

 

To address the scrimmage question above--assuming a fiddly gun, one would expect gunners to remain toward the rear of any formation and seek cover or high ground from which they can employ their fiddly firearm in relative safety.  Reload times and limited ammo mean that you would prefer to either use firearms at the outset of an engagement to seek an immediate advantage, or else reserve shots for strategic usage against stationary or especially dangerous enemies.  In particular, you'd probably want to shoot the enemy wizard first.

 

Conversely there are probably any number of ways a wizard could interfere with a gun user.  Jostle him with TK, get his powder wet, set his powder off, bust the trigger mechanism, blind the firer, turn the bullet to cork or the barrel to glass, or just curse the thing so it'll miss.  I could go on.  Magic, being magic, could do all sorts of things in this regard.

 

 Guns haven't eliminated melee weapons entirely. Well not until recently. it used to be that infantry would receive bayonet training and bayonets were basically pole arms.

 

Your commentary about the use of primitive black powder weapons and how aa Wizard can mess with them are sound.

[Doc Democracy]

One thing magic should also be able to do, is change the nature of the chemical reactions taking place.

 

So, if magic creates a field where gunpowder does not generate an exothermic reaction or accelerates such a reaction, it is likely to cause chaos with technology that relies on reproducible effects....

 

If squaddies believed their guns will fail to fire, or when they do, they might explode in their hands, they are going to lose faith in using them regardless of how valuable they might be under normal circumstances. As such, believing you will win the struggle for magical superiority, much like the WWII battle for air superiority, is likely to be a key factor in the decisions of generals on whether to fight a pitched battle....

 

Doc

[Ternaugh]

I've been running a high fantasy FH campaign with firearms  and cannon since a little after 4e Hero System came out. In general, I've made the following setting assumptions to get the feel that I wanted.

 

Gun technology is essentially at the matchlock and wheel lock stage. Reload times are about a Turn by a competent user, and 2 to 3 Turns for a less competent user. This essentially makes most firearms something that fires once in a short skirmish, as reloading is really something that you can afford if you can set up volley lines (squads). They are fiddly bits of technology, and are extremely susceptible to misfires in rain or wet weather. Matchlocks will have a misfire on a 17-18 (worse in the rain/wet), wheel locks will have a misfire on an 18. Most of the PCs who have carried firearms usually have a pistol or two, and maybe a long gun. Once each has been fired, it's usually time for melee combat.

 

Creation of firearms (and cannon) are the trade secrets of a powerful Dwarven clan, who does not take kindly to outsiders trying their hand at things (smiths tend to end up dead or "disappeared"). They only sell matchlocks to outsiders, and for outrageously large prices. Wheel locks are reserved for their use, and frequently end up as a component in axes, hammers, and the like. They are also used by their mercenary troops, which are rented out to various factions, also for large amounts of money. In the campaign, one of the main threads is how they are slowly losing their monopoly, as the "secrets" get out.

 

Because I wanted more of a swashbuckling feel, I've set up some campaign guidelines. Firearms are AP vs conventional armor (but not necessarily against magical defenses). I've also used a hotter climate to make wearing heavy armor more fatiguing (double the weight for encumbrance purposes). That's put most heavy armor at the level of brigandine, or breastplate and helmet. And I've encouraged martial arts packages, especially the various Fencing schools.

 

Magic tends toward formalized colleges, and is often quite powerful. Depending on the school, it's possible for a mage to dampen all of the gunpowder in an area, set it off prematurely, warp the barrels, and so on.

[Manic Typist]

Can someone articulate the difference between wheellocks, flintlocks, and snaphances? They all seem to work through a mechanism striking a piece of flint against a pan (the frizzen?) and igniting powder. I've read up on them and I don't really see the difference except perhaps in some minutiae of the gears involved.

[Scott Ruggels]

Can someone articulate the difference between wheellocks, flintlocks, and snaphances? They all seem to work through a mechanism striking a piece of flint against a pan (the frizzen?) and igniting powder. I've read up on them and I don't really see the difference except perhaps in some minutiae of the gears involved.

In all cases, the firearm is discharged by introducing sparks or  a burning coal into an open pan of powder welded to the side of the barrel of the firearm, a small hole, allows  the flames from the powder to travel within the barrel and ignite the main charge of the weapon.

 

 A Matchlock, is defined by having a "Slow Match" usually a length of rope, dipped in various chemicals to cause it to burn slowly and continuously.  In early models the match was held in a metal arm, called a "serpentine" which had no spring and was lowered  by the operator squeezing the tail of the serpentine against the stock of the musket, causing the head to dip the glowing part of the match into the pan. The early variants did not have any springs, and the serpentine was usually just a bent piece of metal with a loop at the head, and a pivot in the middle, similar to some cross bows. as time passes, the match burns down and must be continuously adjusted by the operator, so the the glowing coal will hit the pan when he wants it to. Match rope tends to burn at a rate of of an inch ever two minutes or so, and operators would stat a battle with several coils held in the off hand.  I've used one, and the "lock time" between when you decide you want it to fire, and it ignites and discharges the ball downrange calls for very steady nerves as you have to keep the barrel on target all through the firing sequence, including the near volcanic eruption of powder in the pan igniting not very far from one's face. This will effect accuracy, and modern shooters are strongly advised to wear glasses while shooting.

 

The Wheel lock came next  as a midification of the previous ignition system, in that  the previous "serpentine" was now used to hold a wedge of iron pyrite, against a finely toothed wheel. The difference now, is that there was a "frizzen", used to cover the pan, to prevent the priming powder from spilling out of it, and to cover the powder and touch hole in case of inclement weather. In operation, the wheel was given a quarter turn with a key, which tensioned an internal spring, held in place by the trigger mechanism.  In preparation for firing, the operator would Open the frizzen, and place the serpentine so that the flint was against the wheel. A pull of the trigger would produce a shower of sparks into the pan, igniting the powder as before.

Wheelocks are very expensive, and needed a lot of maintenance and care, compared to the matchlocks.

 

The Snaphaunce is essentially an early form of the Flintlock. In that the Serpentine was now spring loaded and released by the trigger. The Frizzen had an iron tail so the serpentine, striking it with a wedge of flint, would expose the pan, and shower the priming powder in the pan with sparks.  below is an exotic flintlock, in that it's a breech loading flintlock, which means it loads faster, and can be loaded prone (preserving one's cover or concealment or DCV)

 

Even More exotic was the Puckle Gun, which was a multi chambered flint lock weapon for use against  Pirates

 

Also Flintlocks can get fairly large

 

Hope this helps.

 

[massey]

One thing magic should also be able to do, is change the nature of the chemical reactions taking place.

 

So, if magic creates a field where gunpowder does not generate an exothermic reaction or accelerates such a reaction, it is likely to cause chaos with technology that relies on reproducible effects....

 

 

I disagree.  That sounds way too much like science.  Magic needs a better description than a "exothermic combustion dampening field".  That sounds like Star Trek.  Make the wood in their weapons come to life, bending and twisting out of their hands.  They look down at their guns and find vines and stuff have grown from the handle into the barrel, jamming it.  But please don't call it something Star Trek-y.

[Doc Democracy]

I disagree.  That sounds way too much like science.  Magic needs a better description than a "exothermic combustion dampening field".  That sounds like Star Trek.  Make the wood in their weapons come to life, bending and twisting out of their hands.  They look down at their guns and find vines and stuff have grown from the handle into the barrel, jamming it.  But please don't call it something Star Trek-y.

Absolutely. 100% agree. I was using the scientific language for the benefit of this discussion. I was trying to explain that the mass effects of magic could cause problems for technology by removing the crutch of reproducibility that science depends upon. If I was to have such an effect then it would need to have a better name. However, not all of the magic should be so obvious. If gunpowder fails to ignite, if rivets fail to hold, if metal tubes fail to retain their integrity without obvious cause, then it will reduce morale of the troops as they cannot trust their weapons. If you see vines grow out of the rifle stock, you use it as a club or stab with the bayonet. If you see nothing and try to fire the weapon, you lose the chance to do anything...

 

:-)

 

Pratchett's Pandemonium is a much better name for this kind of effect... :-)

[Scott Ruggels]

Definitely, one would have morale effects when the weapons became unreliable (see the Canadian Ross Rifle controversy, or the Chauchat controversy, both in the First World War, that brought down politicians because of the reported unreliability of the aforementioned weapons, let alone what the troops thought of them.). It may appear then that in situations where that happened, the smart money would be in keeping "mixed units" longer than they were in history, keeping Pike & shot formations together until such time as an enemy mage was eliminated from the field.  There may also be "spring loaded" backups such as Arbalests, and crossbows. A change in tactics will surprise an enemy for a major battle, or a season, at most. By the next season there is going to be a conservative shift in the tactics to take into account the change, other factors being the same.  Look how fast the Germans adopted a smokeless cartridge rifle, after the French adopted the Lebel Model 1888, the first smokless cartridge rifle. It took about a year for the Germans to adopt/ Modify the Mauser rifle to a smokeless standard, 

A game with nothing but the ill educated and superstitious all the time is not very interesting XD.

[assault]

The obvious question is: why are guns subject to magical interference and non-gunpowder weapons aren't?

 

If I wanted to combine Knights in armour, longbows and gunpowder, I would limit the latter to 15th/16th century technology.

 

If I wanted to combine 19th century guns with bows and spears, I'd go for a colonial or Wild West situation.

 

There's no inherent reason why the lower technology camp has to have the more sophisticated magic. Mundane numbers can balance things up quite well for quite some time.

 

If the issue is "why does technology advance when magic does everything better", then there are clearly reasons why magic doesn't do everything better. Perhaps it's an issue of scarcity, perhaps knowledge of magic doesn't advance faster than technology, or any number of other reasons.

 

Maybe the scientific revolution was also a magical revolution. The open study of magic allowed magical knowledge to advance rapidly....

[Pattern Ghost]

If the issue is "why does technology advance when magic does everything better", then there are clearly reasons why magic doesn't do everything better. Perhaps it's an issue of scarcity, perhaps knowledge of magic doesn't advance faster than technology, or any number of other reasons.

 

 

 

Simple solution: Make magic idiosyncratic and non-repeatable, the opposite of technology. Every mage's ability to alter reality is colored through the lenses of their perception and thought process, therefore one mage cannot simply copy or easily learn the spells of another. Along the same lines, magic can be considered something of a mental power, and mages can interfere with each other's manipulations, so while useful in battle, magic isn't overwhelmingly powerful, as both sides' mages are mostly occupied with fending each other off. This kind of setup lets mages be tactically deployed without overshadowing mundane troops. Of course, if you can take out the other side's mage, you free yours up to wreak havoc.

[assault]

A thought: if magic is the be all and end all, how did technology advance beyond the Stone Age?

 

Obvious answer: because the gods taught humanity.

 

But that doesn't work for a naturalistic setting, where the gods don't do this: "Where's the Zeus who used to turn into a cow and pick up chicks?" (Simpsons quote.)

 

So, since most of the posters here seem to favour naturalistic over mythological settings, the question remains open.

[Pattern Ghost]

A thought: if magic is the be all and end all, how did technology advance beyond the Stone Age?

 

 

I suppose it'd depend on how you define "be all and end all." If you have repeatable, teachable magic, then it becomes the technology. You're now simply operating in a  universe where the physical laws, and thus the technology ("magic") based on them, are different.

[Scott Ruggels]

A thought: if magic is the be all and end all, how did technology advance beyond the Stone Age?

 

Obvious answer: because the gods taught humanity.

 

But that doesn't work for a naturalistic setting, where the gods don't do this: "Where's the Zeus who used to turn into a cow and pick up chicks?" (Simpsons quote.)

 

So, since most of the posters here seem to favour naturalistic over mythological settings, the question remains open.

 

You could possibly consider Magic like how society sees the ability to draw or make music, in that you need an innate talent. (This is not how those talents really work, what they are is an affinity for practicing that skill, even in the face  of setbacks=as a sometimes art instructor). You could have  Self taught, and wild talents of  moderate to low skill, but then apprenticed and instructed mages that stand on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

 

Another way of looking at it, is that magic requires a college level education. Universities existed in late medieval times and you could have magical colleges, which would make magic contingent on literacy, and patronage, which means that magic would be the bailiwick of societal elites, like the Nobility and the clergy. The One Percenters who can fling spells around and become rich off of it, but also  represent a wide variety of interests and  activities.

 

Magic could be  a random effect, delivered to the just and the pious, and usually only used by clergy.

 

lots of ways to approach the conceptual framework for magic, but in general in most settings, magic is used by a small percentage of the population, or a small percentage can use it with large, and powerful effects.  This means that non-magical methods of force multipliers would be advantageous to countries with large armies and large populations. Canon, Firearms, Greek Fire, repeating crossbows, all would be effective for a large army, and Magic would only be an enhancement. What magic may give you though is  more tactical flexibility and agility in the face of a changing situation. Magic becomes the tool of the specialists, the Special Operators, and the spies.  The cost of training and educating one mage, may cost a multiple of what it takes to train qand equip a common soldier, and that multiple (Cost, even point cost) is going to dictate the commonality, or scarcity of battlefield magic. 

[Scott Ruggels]

 

Maybe the scientific revolution was also a magical revolution. The open study of magic allowed magical knowledge to advance rapidly....

 the Colonial era. with magic, and you get Randall Garret's fiction type universe.

 

But yes, if applying a scientific method of study to magic resulted in improvements in the quality, precision and focus of magic, then that would be the approach they would take, as well has having a very clear idea of the advantages , limitations, and frameworks of the meta -magic.  One would then be able to figure out if effects were scalable, applicable to scientific/ industrial processes, the advancement of academic interests,  and/or commercial exploitation.

 

if it's not  amenable to the scientific method, and continues to be irreproducible, capricious, and emotional, then it will continue to be the domain of eccentrics and  sages, leaving scince as a more reliable, and reproducible effects.

[massey]

I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, but I don't care for wizard schools.  Making magic just another type of science is a big no-no for me.  It's okay for the players to understand how their magic functions (I know what will happen when I cast fireball), but your average commoner shouldn't just yawn and say "no big deal" when he sees magic.  It should carry a sense of wonder and mystery.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I don't mind schools, but I think people way over-systematize and try to science up everything these days to the detriment of magic.  I agree that it stops feeling like magic if its explained too well and too understandable.

[Cantriped]

I agree with Massey about "schools of magic", bur for differant reasons. I don't like using fixed D&Desk "Schools of Magic" because they often end up limiting the creativity of the players and GMs by forcing everything into a set of categories.

I much prefer schools of magic to be like schools of martial arts, where a school simply represents a set of techniques which are typically taught together. In that sense Floating Disk, Mage Armor, Mage Hand, Magic Missile, and Shield​ would all be member's of the "Gygaxian School of Force Magic" (even though in D&D these spells normally end up separated into three or four different categorical "schools").

[Ninja-Bear]

Schools of magic.as a DnDism is something I necer heard before but I think that came about around their 3rd edition?

[Chris Goodwin]

I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, but I don't care for wizard schools.  Making magic just another type of science is a big no-no for me.  It's okay for the players to understand how their magic functions (I know what will happen when I cast fireball), but your average commoner shouldn't just yawn and say "no big deal" when he sees magic.  It should carry a sense of wonder and mystery.

 

 

I don't mind schools, but I think people way over-systematize and try to science up everything these days to the detriment of magic.  I agree that it stops feeling like magic if its explained too well and too understandable.

 

 

I agree with Massey about "schools of magic", bur for differant reasons. I don't like using fixed D&Desk "Schools of Magic" because they often end up limiting the creativity of the players and GMs by forcing everything into a set of categories.

I much prefer schools of magic to be like schools of martial arts, where a school simply represents a set of techniques which are typically taught together. In that sense Floating Disk, Mage Armor, Mage Hand, Magic Missile, and Shield​ would all be member's of the "Gygaxian School of Force Magic" (even though in D&D these spells normally end up separated into three or four different categorical "schools").

 

I've got an essay inside me somewhere on this subject.  I'll try to cook it down some for here, but there's a lot to it...

 

RPGs in general, and the HERO System in particular, like to highly quantify and systematize as much as they can.  Partly so that we can figure out how to make a game out of it, and partly so that game can be fun and fair.  (For instance, look at the weapon lists; both modern firearms and fantasy hand weapons have lots and lots of variation.)  

 

Brandon Sanderson talks a lot about what has been called Sanderson's Laws of Magic.  Sanderson's First Law of Magic is:

 

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

 

Link.  For magic to be fun, useful, and not-game-breaking in an RPG both the GM and player need to understand it.  Sanderson talks some about a "soft magic system", which would be a magic system that the author doesn't explain as well; Tolkien's magic system would fall into this.  The drawback to a soft magic system is that the author -- and by extension, the GM and players -- can't use it to solve problems.  Sanderson sez:

 

There is a reason that Gandalf doesn’t just fly Frodo to Mount Doom with magic, then let him drop the ring in. Narratively, that just doesn’t work with the magic system. We don’t know what it can do, and so if the writer uses it to solve a lot of problems, then the tension in the novel ends up feeling weak. The magic undermines the plot instead enhancing it.

 

You could have an unexplained magic system in your games, either soft or hard yet unexplained, but the trap here is that figuring it out ends up being a puzzle between the GM and players.  Think of Original D&D, the 0th edition in the original white pamphlets.  Those original books didn't include a thief class, and there was no "climb walls" skill.  That didn't mean that characters couldn't climb walls; it's just that in order to climb a wall, the DM would ask the player, "How are you going to climb it?"  The player would then describe to the DM how they're hammering pitons into the wall, tying off their safety lines, finding their handholds and footholds, and so on.  I assert that in order for a magic system to "feel like magic", which seems to be most players' and GMs' holy grail, your entire magic system has to be done like this.  The GM absolutely must understand the system, but when the player says "I want to cast my (x) spell," the DM then asks, "How are you going to cast it?"  The GM then has to actually come up with the spell -- the gestures, incantations, material components, even obscure things if applicable like phases of the moon, zodiacal positions, whether the character currently has the correct moral status, and the like.  That means that either the PCs have to be able to do the research, or go through a lot of frustrating experimentation that doesn't work.  Or else the GM relents and lets the character cast the spell, but then it's either a Deus Ex Machina, or else it's a hard magic system.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

 I assert that in order for a magic system to "feel like magic", which seems to be most players' and GMs' holy grail, your entire magic system has to be done like this.  The GM absolutely must understand the system, but when the player says "I want to cast my (x) spell," the DM then asks, "How are you going to cast it?"  The GM then has to actually come up with the spell -- the gestures, incantations, material components, even obscure things if applicable like phases of the moon, zodiacal positions, whether the character currently has the correct moral status, and the like.  That means that either the PCs have to be able to do the research, or go through a lot of frustrating experimentation that doesn't work.

 

 

The Mage magic system (and a few I've playtested) works somewhat like this: you declare your intent within basic guidelines and the GM rules if it works or not.  Its incredibly advantageous to someone who thinks like I do and can create fascinating crap on the fly and justify just about anything but a bit more tough for more structured and less creative thinkers (not dumb, just more analytical or engineering than creative).

 

I like the idea of this kind of magic system but it puts a huge burden on the already burdened GM and is tough to balance (you let me do it last time!!!).

[Chris Goodwin]

The Mage magic system (and a few I've playtested) works somewhat like this: you declare your intent within basic guidelines and the GM rules if it works or not.  Its incredibly advantageous to someone who thinks like I do and can create fascinating crap on the fly and justify just about anything but a bit more tough for more structured and less creative thinkers (not dumb, just more analytical or engineering than creative).

 

I like the idea of this kind of magic system but it puts a huge burden on the already burdened GM and is tough to balance (you let me do it last time!!!).

 

If you mean White Wolf's Mage (I'm only familiar with the original WoD) you still had your various magical spheres, with power levels in them, and a handy chart that told you what so many dots in which sphere was capable of.  It also specified a few other limitations, like if you wanted to be able to create something from "thin air" you needed at least two dots in Prime.  I would say that that magic system absolutely qualifies as a hard magic system, because it systematizes magic to the extent that the players and GM can figure out whether a given effect is possible.  

 

If by Mage you mean something else, then I'm interested to hear more.  

 

It could be fun, true, but the old school saying "rulings not rules" applies here.  Consistent rulings become rules; inconsistent rulings become empty gaming tables...

[massey]

 

 

 

 

 

I've got an essay inside me somewhere on this subject.  I'll try to cook it down some for here, but there's a lot to it...

 

RPGs in general, and the HERO System in particular, like to highly quantify and systematize as much as they can.  Partly so that we can figure out how to make a game out of it, and partly so that game can be fun and fair.  (For instance, look at the weapon lists; both modern firearms and fantasy hand weapons have lots and lots of variation.)  

 

Brandon Sanderson talks a lot about what has been called Sanderson's Laws of Magic.  Sanderson's First Law of Magic is:

 

 

Link.  For magic to be fun, useful, and not-game-breaking in an RPG both the GM and player need to understand it.  Sanderson talks some about a "soft magic system", which would be a magic system that the author doesn't explain as well; Tolkien's magic system would fall into this.  The drawback to a soft magic system is that the author -- and by extension, the GM and players -- can't use it to solve problems.  Sanderson sez:

 

 

You could have an unexplained magic system in your games, either soft or hard yet unexplained, but the trap here is that figuring it out ends up being a puzzle between the GM and players.  Think of Original D&D, the 0th edition in the original white pamphlets.  Those original books didn't include a thief class, and there was no "climb walls" skill.  That didn't mean that characters couldn't climb walls; it's just that in order to climb a wall, the DM would ask the player, "How are you going to climb it?"  The player would then describe to the DM how they're hammering pitons into the wall, tying off their safety lines, finding their handholds and footholds, and so on.  I assert that in order for a magic system to "feel like magic", which seems to be most players' and GMs' holy grail, your entire magic system has to be done like this.  The GM absolutely must understand the system, but when the player says "I want to cast my (x) spell," the DM then asks, "How are you going to cast it?"  The GM then has to actually come up with the spell -- the gestures, incantations, material components, even obscure things if applicable like phases of the moon, zodiacal positions, whether the character currently has the correct moral status, and the like.  That means that either the PCs have to be able to do the research, or go through a lot of frustrating experimentation that doesn't work.  Or else the GM relents and lets the character cast the spell, but then it's either a Deus Ex Machina, or else it's a hard magic system.  

 

 

I disagree, but that's not what I was talking about anyway.  Let me rephrase for clarity.

 

I dislike the idea of wizard universities.  Magic should be something mysterious to the characters within the setting.  Within the setting, magic should not be understood and accepted like science is today in the real world.  The "magic is science/science is magic" equivalency devalues one of the principal facets of the fantasy genre.  I don't want to play in a game where somebody is using a magical version of the internet to order pizza.

 

As to your assertion that everything has to be completely up to the GM to "feel like magic", I think that's wrong.  The game rules just have to set magic apart from the rest of the campaign setting and allow it to feel different.  The player can understand how the rules work, with it still feeling like the character is a wizard or sorcerer instead of a Star Trek guy who wandered away from his ship.