Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara, April 28, 2004, 09:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Fiendish Dr. SamsaraAnd Fantasy Wargaming is surprisingly good, considering that it ought, by all rights, be D&D again. The system does force some thinking about magic and that can be more heavily emphasized in game. Who were those guys and what happened to them?
Quote from: The Fiendish Dr. SamsaraChris, you seem to be making an odd choice if I understand you right: an historical game that would allow Walker's "spiritual magic" as real or operative, but disallow "demonic magic". I don't get that. Alternately, if you are saying that someone might legitimately practice the former and not the latter: well, maybe, but so what? And magicians trying to prove that they are legit and the other guys are not is a classic engaged in by Heinrich and Trithemius and all those folks (the Trithemius-Bovillus debate is a game set-up right there).
Quotecan you be a wizard and not slide into demonic practices? Where do you draw the line between manipulating astral rays and pacting with astral demons?
Quote from: The Fiendish Dr. Samsaramight be boring to game (no fireballs). What if magic simply increased/decreased personal traits? A Martial talisman that helps stamina or a ritual that decreases your rivals perceptions? That could be very historical and still interesting. You could go even further and say that "magic" is just a social skill, used to convince people of things or impress/scare the Hell out of them?
Quote from: contracycleThe "how and why" aspect is something that is under-represented for several reasons IMO.[snip]4) Really what we are talking about here is an ideology or doctrine of reality - the very thing conspicuous by its absence in RPG. This partly due to the habit of deference to the customer and the unwillingness to 'dictacte' to the players, and partly becuase western thought largely considers itself to be non-ideological (ha ha) and doesn't really grant it much importance.5) The habitual reluctance of those few who DO hold to genuinely alternative doctrines about the nature of the world to commit to any meaningful statement. Thus we have debates which refuse to define magic on the basis that this 'limits' magic or similar; the net result is that nothing ever solidifies enough to become a tangibly useful mechanism. I take it some groups work around this at the social contract level, but it is very poorly represented in game design despite the disproportionate representation of alternative lifestyles in RPG.
Quote from: Alan McVeySay you take a system like Heroquest and assign a planet or a constellation to each of a person's traits, so that you get something like Swordsmanship (Mars), Loyalty to Family (Jupiter), and so on.Magic can then be used in one of two ways: the first is the one that you describe; a magician enhances or counters an ability by drawing the influence of the appropriate planet to bear on the target. The second is to keep the ability the same, but replace one planetary influence with another, changing the "flavour" of the trait. Loyalty to Family (Jupiter) suggests that the character will want to see the family thrive in the political and social sphere, but if that's nudged over to Loyalty to Family (Mars), then the emotion would take on more violent characteristics, while bringing in Venus could make it downright unhealthy.I'm using an idea here from Giordano Bruno's work on bonds, De vinculis in genere, where he describes everyone and everything being influenced by invisible bonds that cannot be severed, but that can be transformed in quality. I'm not sure how you'd apply it to physical abilities, but I do think that this could capture some of the subtlety of early modern magic.-A. McVey
Quote from: redwalkerAs to the reluctance of those who are committed to make "meaningful" statements, I protest that.
Quote from: contracycleWe have no shortage of adherents of seriously alternative, non-mainstream views, but we never seem able to translate these worldviews into actual mechanisms.
Quote from: The Fiendish Dr. Samsara2. Redwalker—I wasn't meaning to knock Shah as an esotericist. I'm just saying that he's no historian, so that his historical assertions are not that useful. But an esotericist doesn't need to be an historian. Indeed, the fundamental assumptions of an orthodox historian may be antithetical to a functional esotericist. The latter often operate through a Law of Similarity in their thinking that mainstream historians find ridiculous (ask me sometime about the Richard Kieckhefer-Carlo Ginzburg witchcraft battles). As someone who has operated on both sides of the divide, I would suggest that neither has any superior claim to "correctness". But that's just me.
Quote from: BPetroff93The question really is why we find current game magick systems unsatisfying. A desire for "realism" is difficult to advocate because most of us have very little background in the construction and execution of magick rituals, and even those of us that do could spend years arguing the correct interpretation of magickal theory. I think the call for realism in an RPG setting is really more about a desire to make magick MAGICK, something that has value and meaning and power, rather than just another set of mechanical rules.