I am working (mainly a collection of ideas, as I do all my thinking at work without access to a pen and pad) on a game setting (no thought given to mechanics as of yet) that is to be a fantasy setting with your typical mix of midde ages and ancient world technology.
I have come to a big stumbling block in the development of a general world idea because I want to create a system of magic which is logical and cosistent, wherein the consequences of the magic and its capabilities are used by rational actors and the state of the game world reflects this. This almost immediatly eleminates the classic magic system (D&D) and creates serious issues for the more 'open' magic systems (Mage). I'll basically give a view of the notions of 'won't work' and some thoughts at solutions I've had.
#1 You can't just have an arbitrary set of 'spells' because that, basically, doesn't make any sense. Okay, if you had deities you could have them (by fiat) handing out edicts, but why in the world would they do that? Not to mention a host of other logical issues with superintelligent, superpowerful immortal transdimensional beings who can't see to conjure up fission power and are obsessed with the actions of little monkeys. So the list-o-spells system clearly isn't going to work as it's neither rational nor internally consistent.
#2 The 'open ended' system has some problems, too. For example it is going to be a fantasy world, so the technology level has to be pretty low. That means that something has to stop people from using magic in common devices, as techology or to develop technology. I can imagine that a lot of transmutation, polymorphing and energy generation capacities would entirely screw up any possibility of low-tech as you've just developed the capacity to build and power electronic machinery, titanium vehicles etc. Also by the notion of supply curve if these things could be done they would be done by more and more people, elevating the general wealth of the population and eleminating the basis of feudalism.
#3 Magic in general. Sort of like above, but take into account the effects of magic. If someone can generate cold (very easy in most magic systems) one can create refrigeration, the source of the largest population boom in the history of mankind. Being able to cool food for storage or transportation means the population is going to explode, leaving very little room for the artisans, tiny hamlets and unoccupied wilderness so popular in fantasy gaming. Also all those people gathered together is going to increase the division of labour and drive up the technolgy and prosperity of everyone, another issue that will disrupt the fantasy atmosphere. Or how about divining and remote viewing capacities, or teleportation's effect on commerce and politics.
#4 Magic as healing. The ability to heal is extremely complex, as one must rearrange molecular things or accelerate natural proccesses, provide the energy and materials neccesary for such action and so on. That level of manipulation means that the magic should also be able to develop microcircutry, tiny machines, high-quality engineering and also extremely, instantly deadly results. Actually even simpler methods apply, for if you can generate 20 or 30 pounds of force (telekinesis) you should be able to kill a man instantly by crushing his brain - even the biggest, toughest SOB has a mushy brain that is easily destroyed by the force it takes to swing a ballpin hammer. The lethal implications of such capacity are staggering.

This means that magic has to be difficult, in limited supply and limited in it's effects (it cannot, for example, grant knowledge in and of itself, or else the technology/engineering edge would annihilate the dark ages tech level, because technology can be spread very easily even if magic itself is difficult). I mainly want magic to have practical combat and civil value, yet without leaving unanswered questions like why don't magicians use magic fire to make steam engines, or transmutation to make chemical substances like gunpowder or napalm, or polymorphing to make complex machine parts for rifles and tanks.

Also magic should make sense, there should be a 'why' to it. The 'why' need not neccesarily be known to the world, or be answered but it should not reduce to pure arbitrariness - statements like 'the gods' or 'other dimensions' can 'explain' anything and, in fact, explain nothing.

Some solution ideas and their problems:
Quantum Probability: The quantum probability theory has the advantage of conforming, at least generally, to known physics and therefor logical and consistent. The problems with quantum probability as an explanation for magic are several, ones I can think of as follows.
Why can humans (or other animals) manipulate quantum probability? Clearly we possess no such capacity as it is, and the complexity required for such organs would surely be above and beyond that which already exists in our brains (or any manufactured technology). If this level of biological complexity exists, where does it come from? Why isn't it manifest in the rest of their physiology, why only this one specific capacity while leaving the rest typical human? The answer given in Aberrant (WW, Superhero) is that some sort of 'node' exists and has evolved spontaneously from a weird accident (explosion of a satellite). This leaves something to be desired from a biological standpoint but even if we accept it as an explanation for why, it leaves the problems of consequences.
If people can manipulate quantum probability what is to stop them from being omnipotent? String theory aside, quantum mechanics is basically the core of reality and changing quantum probability effectively eleminates the laws of entropy, motion and uncertainty. Clearly, then, such control must be limited. But why, and why to specific effects? Even if only very weak general effects are allowed the energy requisite (which is, after all, the name of the game) that would allow a person to do any practical thing like transmutate substances or even shoot lighting would also allow him to ram particles together and create nuclear explosions or, if very imprecise, he could still be 'brain crusher' as I noted above. The Aberrant explanation is psychosomatic, basically, people's manifested powers are limited by their psyche. I find this explantion wanting, however, as I can't imagine everyone, or even a majority, would be so limited that they could not conceive of absolute power in at least some realms of action.
Nanites: Nano-machines are a favourite explanation of mine: little molecular machines are whirring about everywhere and humans have some evolved or bioengineered capacity to control them, forcing them to reassemble molecules or release energy resulting in (respectively) transmutation or blasts of fire. Of course this again raises the problem of results, nanomachines could, even if only vaguely controlled, disassemble someone's eyes or brain or a number of other rapidly lethal things without much precision control. And if they are not precise and/or powerful enough to kill something as big and soft as a primate, why should they be able to work with harder, smaller and more complex tasks that are so commonly called upon by wizards?

So, as you can see, I have no real solutions. Any suggestions?

I wanted to note, to begin with, that this post of yours seems to assume that magic operates in scientific manners, on a universe that can be described and interacted with in a scientific way.

I think this science crap is getting in the way of your fantasy vision.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: I wanted to note, to begin with, that this post of yours seems to assume that magic operates in scientific manners, on a universe that can be described and interacted with in a scientific way.

I think this science crap is getting in the way of your fantasy vision.

I suggest you take a look at Hero or GURPS...
in that order.

Cmonkey wrote: I suggest you take a look at Hero or GURPS...
in that order.

OK. I'm in full agreement with the majority of your analysis - but you have dismissed the elimination of physical sciences too soon.

Certainly I share the view that if you are not talking about something thats in some sense verifiable you might as not talk about it all, but this does not in any way mean that physcial realities of our world need to be carreid over into the game world. Now that seems like an obvious thing to say but there are a number of fantasy worlds set on actual spherical planets orbiting suns - why?

OK so we figured out the world was round a long time ago. Neverthelessb this degree of physical science IMO undermines the fantastic element, tends to prompt for the mundane answer. I much prefer ideas that try to present the game reality in some manner suitable to the feel, like Ars Magica's model of divine and infernal regions and powers.

What is missing from most magic systems is cosmology. Both theology and science have cosmological functions for their communities, but in RPG magic is almost always just a tool, or a force of nature rather like electricity. The magic system must incorporate some of this explanation of how things arfe and how they came to be in order to be complete and satisfying as MAGIC, I feel.

contracycle wrote: OK. I'm in full agreement with the majority of your analysis - but you have dismissed the elimination of physical sciences too soon.

Certainly I share the view that if you are not talking about something thats in some sense verifiable you might as not talk about it all, but this does not in any way mean that physcial realities of our world need to be carreid over into the game world. Now that seems like an obvious thing to say but there are a number of fantasy worlds set on actual spherical planets orbiting suns - why?

OK so we figured out the world was round a long time ago. Neverthelessb this degree of physical science IMO undermines the fantastic element, tends to prompt for the mundane answer. I much prefer ideas that try to present the game reality in some manner suitable to the feel, like Ars Magica's model of divine and infernal regions and powers.

What is missing from most magic systems is cosmology. Both theology and science have cosmological functions for their communities, but in RPG magic is almost always just a tool, or a force of nature rather like electricity. The magic system must incorporate some of this explanation of how things arfe and how they came to be in order to be complete and satisfying as MAGIC, I feel.

Well, let's skip magic for now as it seems insoluable. What about personal arms?
In warfare spears and axes dominate, while swords are for the rich all purpose types who go about on horses. But what is a practical personal weapon for someone wandering? Bows are worthless in most circumstances, spears are a bit unweildy (and you do NOT chop with a halberd, stop making it do 96d4 damage - you poke and wiggle it), swords are expensive but seem a good option because they're all-purpose.

GreedIsGod,
I agree with your notion that you had best keep the existing physical sciences as-is, in order to explain the "mundane" parts of the world, from the reason leaves are green to the reason humans can digest cheese. If you want the level of internal consistency you seem to be aiming for, this is pretty much the only option.

For the same reason, magic, whatever it is, should be an additive, not a derivative in a game like this. If you use quantum mechanics, nanites, dimensional manipulation a la Bear's Moving Mars, or whatnot, you're inevitably going to run into awkwardness at the interface between the mundane and the magical. You have already shown this for the first two examples and I think the title of the novel should be sufficient to discourage considering the third example a viable solution.

On the other hand, if magic is its own thing, independent of physics as we know it, you can shape it any which way you want without being constrained by what is already known about physics.

Now it becomes a problem in reverse engineering. You want magic that is powerful enough to be a significant force, but you want to avoid insta-kill effects as well as anything that would set off the Industrial Revolution.

The industial revolution problem actually has a multitude of solutions outside the magic system. As you yourself already pointed out, a society sufficiently strapped for resources can have all the knowledge and skill you want, they will not be able to bootstrap into an industrial society. It could also be a cultural thing (which was the "problem" with the ancient Greeks at least as much as the lack of resources). The general attitude could be that such use of magic is vulgar or even evil.

Of course such a status quo could be challenged, perhaps successfully. That'd be the game, with the PCs on the one side or the other.

If you want it more absolute, then there must be something in the nature of magic that prohibits the formation of magical assembly lines. As long as you cannot get large numbers of reliable repetition out your magic, it is useless to any plan of industrialization and in fact will actively stand in the way of such plans (by making craftmanship more effective than it is in our world)

In the same way the insta-kills could be solved socially, much like the medieval rule of engagement that peons do not attack knights, or they could be solved by the properties of the magic system. In the former case you have the option of having the game be about the local equivalent of the Guldensporenslag --Battle of the Golden Spurs--.

Assuming you want both issues fixed in the magic system, this gives us the requirements:

- Magic must be hard to repeat
- Large scale magics of any kind must be hard
- Killing someone with magic must be difficult.

The middle one is easy, just have some line-of-sight or even touch-only requirement.

Hard to repeat can be accomplished by making each magical act an unreplenishable resource. Metaphorically, I am given a "dictionary" of magical effects at birth, and every time I use one, that effect dissappears from my vocabulary; I cannot do that again. Maybe I can achieve the same result using other "words", but I can never exactly repeat myself.

Killing can be made very awkward if there is some price, some kind of karmic burden, that I must pay when I kill with magic. Sure, there's going to be mages pissed of enough to do this, but there's going to be a powerful incentive to stick to more mundane means of killing.

After all, the only constraint that you gave is that the rules must be consistent, not that they must be "physical". You can get quite some milage out of building your magic on a moral, or an esthetical, or even an historical--you can only do what has already been done-- base. Logic is not constrained in its application to molecules and planetary orbits.

I hope the examples above help get your imagination unstuck. The very best rules, the strongest, most compelling logic is going to be the one that comes out of your passion for making this work.

SR
--

Interesting ideas. I want to stay away from the more 'WTF?' type of solutions such as the dictionary concept, and the Modisette answer of 'chaos' vs. 'order', (either everything is chaotic or nothing is, you cannot have a middle ground that makes any sense) but something as follows might be a solution:
Suppose you've got a few basic, weak capacities which can be developed through whatever means such as: some sort of radio-energy emmision which can be utilized to scramble DNA and burn people, but has little practical application otherwise because it's not precision and no one has the damndest idea about photoelectric plate technology. Then a couple of other effects like light-displacement/bending which allows magnification, blinding, invisibility and perhaps the focusing of light to the point where it becomes like a laser. The last would have potential for precision engraving and might be used to help increase the production of certain arms and armour via sheet-metal, but is still not controllable and exact enough to be useful in real precision machinery development. Then there is visible light generation, which lacks much energy but can be used to dazzle someone's eyes, light an area or 'write' something in the air.
Light-based magic removes the 'insta-kill' problem of kinetic energy while retaining some practical and martial value. It also has limited technological applications, it can create heat and allow some more refined artisan work (via 'lasers' and and magnification) but doesn't have the ability to create real machining (although rapid replication via templates might be viable, increasing the propensity of farmers to use cheap metal implements made on a general plan, and such) which the scarcity of metals (pre-water pump technology) will keep in check. There are many military implications, the ability to hide scouts and deliver energy assaults at the enemy lines working like stealth and artillery, but being rare and difficult enough to leave room for melee and archery. This also allows us to sidestep the whole notion of superintelligent beings and deities who would likely ruin everything with their endless free time and limitless capital stock.
This system, however, lacks the robustness of the more common magical systems.

I want to make a socio-ethic that is different from what is common among Westerners, at least among some of the culture. Some of the notions I want to deal with are:
Soldiers are not heroes and government bureaucrats are not 'civil servants'. Of course most middle ages merchants and peasants were well aware of this, but the notion is often lost on fantasy game producers who are inspired by a mix of Romanticism and modern socialistic-democratic-etatism which is in fashion. How different would a society be that by and large despised governance and martialry, IE what if there was a Lockean society in 1200AD, how would it differ from the middle ages and modern society?
Also little attention is often payed to the import of true Empires and City-States in a dark ages setting, something that never existed historically. Due to the economic realities of the dark ages spanning empires could not be supported while at the same time totally independent cities could not exist. However fantasy settings often drop them in, empires to numerous to name and Greyhawk comes to mind as a city state. How would a mediaevil feudal society deal with empires and city-states?

strange duplication removed

Greed:

You mentioned Mage above; this it seems to me is a much better approach than attempting to attach magic to an otherwise physically deterministic universe.

Failing that, I would be inclined to favour pseudo-magic derived from technology. That at least remains consistent and comprehensible, but denies any mysticism.

GreedIsGod wrote:
Soldiers are not heroes and government bureaucrats are not 'civil servants'. Of course most middle ages merchants and peasants were well aware of this, but the notion is often lost on fantasy game producers who are inspired by a mix of Romanticism and modern socialistic-democratic-etatism which is in fashion.

How different would a society be that by and large despised governance and martialry, IE what if there was a Lockean society in 1200AD, how would it differ from the middle ages and modern society?

Greedy, welcome to the Forge!

In this game of yours, what do the characters do?

Do you consider magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

Please don't dash back with "all three." Please imagine some people playing your game, having their characters do something - how does magic figure in your vision of play?

Also, if I may, what's your real name? Mine's Vincent.

-Vincent

I say start working on the story and extrapolate it from there.
For my card game Twilight, I took some of the same look at it as you did ("Hey, that doesn't make sense!"), but I simply started with the basic thoughts on Magic and started to explain why these were true in my world:
-Magic using is, indeed, a rare feat.
-Extreme spell casting 'took a lot out of you'
-Spells are often cast with a series of words or incantations, accompanied by movement, gestures, or 'focuses', items that helped focus the power of the spell.

Okay, next step, why are these true?
I determined, was the traits had to be genetic. There was an extra gene in mages that was turned 'on'. This gene advocated the production of a minute chemical in the body of 'mage'.

How can that possibly affect the world around the mage?
Biblical reference here got me going on it- "And the Lord said..."
Traditional Magic relies on spoken word, but, to steal a phrase from you, that simply doesn't make sense- words have no meaning outside of the human understanding of them.
The substance, the chemical produced inside the mages body, is also found in almost all matter on a very, very, very small level, simply sharing enough particals to exist.
The *sound* of the incantation, combined with an already high concentration of the substance in this mage's body works like a resonating sound, amplifying the effect and affecting nearby matter. The movements and gestures of traditional spells exist to give a different spread of the substance in the Mages body and affect the spreading pattern of resonance. As for "focus" items, those respond to the resonance as well, altering it as it recognizes it and adding a new "wrinkle" so to speak to it. Thus, a spell which needs specific focuses won't work or work properly without them.
The substance in matter reacts to different situations: for example, when the matter is in freefall, it responds one way, if its burning it responds another. The spells work like toggle switches, tuning the substance to one state or another. Tuning it to "freefall" for example, would allow a rock to hover in midair.

Now, in humans, doing this burns through some of their accumulated chemical, thus spell casting taking "a lot out of you". The Mage's body, accustomed to the chemical in its system, finds itself unable to function properly without a certain level of of it in their system. Thus, diminished capacity, exaustion, ect.
An alternative to natural production of this chemical in my world came in the form of Moren, a substance derived from Vampire's blood that replenished the chemical balance inside a mage. To normal humans, however, taking the substance can kill you, your body unable to assimilate the energy suddenly being literally dumped into you.

But, where did all of this come from?
I went with a divine influance. I view Magic as something similar to the backdoor a programmer might write into something, allowing them entrance to the finished product to tweak it or adjust it. Magic, in my mind, is the same: it allows someone/thing the chance to bend the rules of nature momentarily.

Just sit down, play 20 Questions with yourself. Don't trash the traditional views on Magic because they might actually start you down a road

Greed, I think you and I have some fundamental differences on what does and doesn't "make sense". Your notion that no world with dieties could possibly "make sense" is pretty much contradicted by the fact that such a world has "made sense" to most of the population of this planet for most of human history (since long before any current religions existed). You've taken a lot of highly dubious positions in this thread that ultimately are nothing but your personal preferences and therefor do not make any more nor less sense than any one elses preferences except to you.

But this is niether the thread, forum, or site for such discussions, so I'm going to mentally edit out your "makes sense" positions and replace it with "what I want to accomplish for this particular game". Since its your game and your preferences going into it, we can then at least discuss your desired points which may or may not otherwise "make sense" themselves.



I think you need to start from a socio-economic-political stance with your setting. Completely ignore for the time being the mechanics of what magic is or what its capable of. Simply start by postulating a world in which magic is real and real practitioners have real power (on some scale of power).

We have ample examples of this from the real world. Whether or not magic practitioners in the real world had any real magic matters not. What matters is that people believed they did and reacted socially accordingly.

Throughout most of human history magic was the provenance of the divine. Whether animistic spirit worship or an actual pantheon of humanized dieties it was the shamans / priests / god-kings who wielded miraculous powers.


You've indicated you're not really interested in a world with actual dieties. So your first choice should really be to determine whether magic will have a connection to religion or not in your world. Simultaneously with this decision you'll have to decide if there even is widely practiced religion in your world or not. If there is a widely practiced religion and magic users are part of its hierarchy but there aren't real dieties than by answering a simple fundamental question about your world you've opened up a huge range of possibilities. Systematically going through and speculating about the ripple effect each sequence of decisions will have starting from the simple premise of "magic exists, there are no dieties" will go much farther to making your setting realistic than any amount of worrying about the physics of magic. In otherwords, an essay about the role of the automobile in shaping American society (and being shaped by it) vs. its role in other societies is far more interesting than an essay on how the internal combustion engine works (at least from the perspective of what makes for interesting roleplaying situations).

For example: on the basis of the above questions here are 3 starter ideas for a setting.

1) Society is tightly tied to religion, even more than influence of the Catholic Church in Europe pre enlightenment. The reason for the church's influence is that its miracles are real. There is real power, visible, measurable, recordable, witnessable, and undeniable. Faith is not necessary when the priest can erase doubt by demonstrating the power of god. Except that there is no god. The powers demonstrated by the priests are simple results of applying scientific/magical principles. They are wizards not agents of the divine. The entirety of the church's theology is a work of fiction fabricated to protect and justify the magic of the priesthood. The faithful are dupes. Their sins are not being watched, their souls are not being measured, there is no after life.

Additional decisions from here would be to determine how high in the hierarchy you have to go before you're initiated in the truth? How the church maintains its secret? How it deals with "heretics" who reveal the fraud to the masses? Whether the church is a parasite using faith to leech off society, or whether it is a benevolent organization which brought peace and prosperity to a suffering people for the price of believing a simple a lie? Whether there are multiple false religions which battle each other for dominance?

Under this environment magical "technology" doesn't spread because its all controlled by the church and the church is motivated to dole it out only as needed to maintain their position of supremacy. The rest of society gets only what the church lets them have.


2) Drawing on a more ancient world background, society is based on slaves. Nearly all labor is performed by slaves. Citizens are typically either merchants, administrators, or soldiers. The primary source of slaves is the conquest of enemies by warrior kings. Magic is real but the warrior kings seek to control it for their own advantage (think the sorcerous from Scorpion King). Non affiliated mages are recruited or slain if they are caught. Kings walk the dangerous line between using powerful mages to gain an advantage over their enemies vs. risking becoming puppets to the sorcerers.

Magical technology is limited in this case because the kings have "more important" things for the mages to work on, and because the source of a king's power is his base of slave labor. Labor saving magical technology would upset the need to have a large labor pool which would undermine the king's power. An interesting place for roleplaying would be the "free society" where players would play mages who run a slaveless society using magical labor struggling to survive against the combined emnity of the kings while also struggling to maintain a balance between the ruling mages so as not to allow one to become a new "sorcerer king".


3) Or how about a society that has all of the mechanical trappings of religion but none of the divine or theological elements. One where the mechanics of ceremony, attending "mass", offering prayers, making sacrifices, etc actually has a practical and measurable effect. It drives magic. But the people are well aware and have been for some time that it is merely the mechanical process that generate the magical power (no more divine than mechanical processes that generate electricity). Belief in spirits and the supernatural has long been given up as primitive (even though such primitive practices also manages to generate magic). Those able to tap into the field of magic generated by society can use it to shape society, healing, building, employing magical "devices", ensuring good harvests, and all manner of tasks typically entrusted to a governmental bureaucracy. The prosperity of the kingdom is directly tied then to not just the ability of these practitioners but also the strength and reliability of the "magic" field generated by the people. Failing to go to church on Sunday (so to speak) thus has immediate repurcussions on the kingdoms level of magic power.

Cracks have arisen in the system, however, because as more and more is done by magic (including the maintenance of magic technology such as water systems, and waste incinerators, and cross town teleporters) more and more power is needed. However, unlike a modern city, city leaders cannot simply build another powerplant to provide the needed energy. They must instead invent another ritual, another observance, another "religious practice" (like avoiding meat on Fridays). This new practice than begins to generate more power as people start to comply with it.

By now, however, the list of required observances is beyond the ability of most to remember and the majority of every individual's time is beginning to be spent on making the effort to participate. Some individual's time is too important to waste in all day prayer sessions, however, and have been given special exemptions which has given rise to class animosity (where class differences are not so much economic...in a society powered by magic, there is plenty for everyone...but instead based on time dedicated vs time exempted).

Emigration happens as people move from cities where the required observations are onerous to areas where they are less so leaving behind cities which lack the population to maintain their magic powered infrastructure (yes, in much the same way businesses flee high tax cities to lower tax suburbs leaving behind urban wastelands).



Ok, enough with the examples.

The point of this exercise is that once you start getting a feel for the social, political, and economic issues (going well beyond the above starters) what magic does and how it does it will more or less fall into place based on its own internal consistancy and logic. You'll be able to easily figure out the Biq Magic Questions: Where does the power come from, how is the power manipulated, what effects can be achieved, how long does it take, what is the cost, who can do it, how do they learn, how are they controled, and what impact do they have on society.

Hi Greed,

Having written a fantasy game and wrestled with many of the same concepts that you are now battling with, perhaps I can help. If you are serious about designing a fantasy rpg, I suggest you start from the very basics (as Ralph and Vincent have suggested) and determine what exactly your game is about. What do the players do? How are the players rewarded for getting involved in what the game is about and what the characters are "supposed" to do? Determing magic and melee weapons details are steps way on down the line. Start from the beginning!

I also urge you to read Jared Sorensen's iSystem Manifesto. He's a smart guy, and an amazing game designer.

The greatest thing about game design is that "making sense" in an empirical way doesn't matter. Each game creates its own "sense" -- it's own world, philosophy and feel.

So figure out what you want your game to do, and then start thinking about the role of the players (not the characters) in that scheme.

None of this is easy. It takes introspection and intuition. But if you can make it through this process, you'll likely have a kick ass game.

Good luck!
-Luke

GreedIsGod wrote:

#1 You can't just have an arbitrary set of 'spells' because that, basically, doesn't make any sense. Okay, if you had deities you could have them (by fiat) handing out edicts, but why in the world would they do that? Not to mention a host of other logical issues with superintelligent, superpowerful immortal transdimensional beings who can't see to conjure up fission power and are obsessed with the actions of little monkeys. So the list-o-spells system clearly isn't going to work as it's neither rational nor internally consistent.
#2 The 'open ended' system has some problems, too. For example it is going to be a fantasy world, so the technology level has to be pretty low. That means that something has to stop people from using magic in common devices, as technology or to develop technology. I can imagine that a lot of transmutation, polymorphing and energy generation capacities would entirely screw up any possibility of low-tech as you've just developed the capacity to build and power electronic machinery, titanium vehicles etc. Also by the notion of supply curve if these things could be done they would be done by more and more people, elevating the general wealth of the population and eliminating the basis of feudalism.
#3 Magic in general. Sort of like above, but take into account the effects of magic. If someone can generate cold (very easy in most magic systems) one can create refrigeration, the source of the largest population boom in the history of mankind. Being able to cool food for storage or transportation means the population is going to explode, leaving very little room for the artisans, tiny hamlets and unoccupied wilderness so popular in fantasy gaming. Also all those people gathered together is going to increase the division of labour and drive up the technology and prosperity of everyone, another issue that will disrupt the fantasy atmosphere. Or how about divining and remote viewing capacities, or teleportation's effect on commerce and politics.
#4 Magic as healing. The ability to heal is extremely complex, as one must rearrange molecular things or accelerate natural processes, provide the energy and materials necessary for such action and so on. That level of manipulation means that the magic should also be able to develop microcircutry, tiny machines, high-quality engineering and also extremely, instantly deadly results. Actually even simpler methods apply, for if you can generate 20 or 30 pounds of force (telekinesis) you should be able to kill a man instantly by crushing his brain - even the biggest, toughest SOB has a mushy brain that is easily destroyed by the force it takes to swing a ballpin hammer. The lethal implications of such capacity are staggering.

I.)A.) This means that magic has to be difficult,
B.) in limited supply
C.) and limited in it's effects
(it cannot, for example, grant knowledge in and of itself, or else the technology/engineering edge would annihilate the dark ages tech level, because technology can be spread very easily even if magic itself is difficult).
II.) I mainly want magic to have
A.) practical combat and
B.) civil value,
III.) yet without leaving unanswered questions like
A.)why don't magicians use magic fire to make steam engines, or
B.) transmutation to make chemical substances like gunpowder or napalm,
C.) or polymorphing to make complex machine parts for rifles and tanks.

IMO the major problem with fantasy worlds that they project a completely false, consumerist economy which is utterly inappropriate to the period, and is derived IMO from an uncritical acceptance of capitalist dogma as universal. It denies class relationships and thus cannot meaningfully represent a feudal society.

Do you consider magic to be primarily a tool for the PCs to use, a hazard for the PCs to deal with, or a neutral but atmospheric feature of the setting?

Also, if I may, what's your real name? Mine's Vincent.

I say start working on the story and extrapolate it from there.

Greed, I think you and I have some fundamental differences on what does and doesn't "make sense". Your notion that no world with dieties could possibly "make sense" is pretty much contradicted by the fact that such a world has "made sense" to most of the population of this planet for most of human history (since long before any current religions existed). You've taken a lot of highly dubious positions in this thread that ultimately are nothing but your personal preferences and therefor do not make any more nor less sense than any one elses preferences except to you.

We have ample examples of this from the real world. Whether or not magic practitioners in the real world had any real magic matters not. What matters is that people believed they did and reacted socially accordingly.

You've indicated you're not really interested in a world with actual dieties. So your first choice should really be to determine whether magic will have a connection to religion or not in your world. Simultaneously with this decision you'll have to decide if there even is widely practiced religion in your world or not.

The greatest thing about game design is that "making sense" in an empirical way doesn't matter. Each game creates its own "sense" -- it's own world, philosophy and feel.

Hi RJ, I'm'a follow up with my "what do the characters do" question.

You wrote: It is a (largely) Feudal society and I want the PC adventurers (largely minor nobles, due to facts of historical feudal society) to explore the political, social and cultural world while at the same time encountering fantastic things.

Actually if you take the position of logical empiricism (which I do, for several reasons I consider practically impossible to challenge) then you find that the 'Supernatural' in general can not possibly exist, and to speak of anything under that heading, such as 'God', is to literally fail to know what you are talking about - the word simply means nothing. People may have different opinions than me, but I don't care. Opinions mean absolutely nothing - a thing is true, or false, regardless of whether everyone or no one believes it and only arguments and evidence have value - not belief. Thus I do not consider my opinions at all dubious or personal (as might reasonably argued my preference for H&K over Glock pistols) but simply a natural result of taking critical analysis literally and absolutely over such preferences. I have discovered that almost everything everyone believes is false, not simply erroneously construed but flatly and positively nonsensical, wrong and counter-evidincial.
Because I insist on doing everything in such a critical manner I feel the need to conduct even my fiction thus, leaving me with no ability (or desire) to fall back upon the Black Box defense of demons, Gods and other fantastic notions

#1 You can't just have an arbitrary set of 'spells' because that, basically, doesn't make any sense. Okay, if you had deities you could have them (by fiat) handing out edicts, but why in the world would they do that? Not to mention a host of other logical issues with superintelligent, superpowerful immortal transdimensional beings who can't see to conjure up fission power and are obsessed with the actions of little monkeys. So the list-o-spells system clearly isn't going to work as it's neither rational nor internally consistent.

Hello,

I'm Ron, the content moderator.

And this is a forum for designing specific role-playing games.

I strongly suggest that Vincent's questions for RJ are the core issue of this thread so far. Everyone's comments can help with the answers - but as Ralph correctly states, this is not the place for illuminating others with one's fascinating personal viewpoints. Other websites exist for that purpose.

So! The thread will now continue on these two points:

1. RJ's answers to Vincent's questions

2. Everyone helping RJ with his stated goals (based on #1)

If you can't get behind these points as the foundation for your participation in this thread, then please post on another thread instead, about something else.

Best,
Ron

My first set of questions: "explore" - like explorers, on a voyage of discovery?

It seems to me that to minor nobles, the political, social and cultural world will be pretty much known already. Not much to explore, really - unless you intend them to explore beyond the boundaries of their own society.

I do, however, get the sense that you're after a really conventional play dynamic: the GM presents your intensively-detailed game world to the players, who have strict control over their own character's actions and nothing else. True?

If so, do you intend the GM to be the sole rules person, with the players just doing whatever the GM tells them to, ruleswise (as in Multiverser), or do you intend the players to master the rules too?

As designer, do you consider yourself to have any responsibility for making the game in play be not boring?

what rpgs have you a) played or b) only read, as influences on this game you're designing?

Howdy,
Just thought I'd drop in and try to help out. A look at C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy might prove helpful here. The books take an interesting viewpoint on magic from a more scientific stance. They might give you some ideas. I'd paraphrase it for you but I'm a bit pressed for time.

Later,
Crow

RJ, excellent. Thank you!

You've got two very serious problems to confront as a game designer, before you even get to play dynamics, let alone magic system or fighting rules. I don't see any positive direction for this thread or your game design to go, until you've dealt with these two problems. Thus I'll raise only them, and leave your game design alone until you've addressed them.

---

The more serious problem:

You wrote: I do have an interest in making it interesting because I am going to actually play this if I ever get it finished (or partially finished). [My emphasis. -VB]

You wrote: RPGs that influence this idea would be
Played: Stormbringer!, AD&D1E, GURPS Conan
Read: BRP Call of Cthulhu

You wrote: The CoC influence is in potential mechanics type and a focus on realistic combat - that is, not super-deadly or super-complex, but the sort of arbitrary randomness that is so common to real-world fighting.

Another good example of hit location/wound path games would be Milleniums End and the Babylon Project by Chameleon Eclectic IIRC. Milleniums end is the more fully developed version, and the Babylon Project a cut down version.

One of its major innovations is a bullet fall diagram. A cellophane sheet is placed over a silhouette of a target (and there are some diagrams for animals and different postures) and the actual point of impact of the shot is determined, thus taking into acocunt multiple body areas that the projectile might traverse.

Its a very detailed system, but IMO overly detailed and rather cumbersome. Nonetheless its a pretty radical departure from ablative hit points.

You don't seem the type for false modesty, so I read you to mean that you're not committed to finishing this game.

Have you read any games more current than those?

RJ, you wrote: I intend to finish it to the point where 1) it is a complete game or 2) it is a set of game concept content which could be applied to an existing system. In either case the current topic would still be applicable.

You wrote: In this sense 'explore' is meant as examination and interaction. Obviously minor nobles will have a reasonable grasp of their cultural heritage, but following the intrigues and specifics of diplomacy, vassalage and war is the idea.

You wrote:

As designer, do you consider yourself to have any responsibility for making the game in play be not boring?

I do have an interest in making it interesting because I am going to actually play this if I ever get it finished (or partially finished).

Who do you envision inventing the intrigues and the specifics of diplomacy, vassalage and war - you as the designer, the local GM, or the local players?

Do you imagine PCs to have any ambition or active will at all?

I'm the GM. We find playing your game boring. Is that your fault or our fault?

dismissed my and our work as "just esoteric ways of rolling dice" and worse.

Better and better. More questions.

Do you envision the PCs working generally together, or generally opposing one another?

Are you interested in the human costs and components of ambition - who will the character screw over to get his way? does the character deserve the loyalty of his people? - or just in the, I dunno, logistical effort involved?

Either way, what opposes the characters? What defines the forces or people or circumstances that stand between them and achieving their goals?

This last question is key - think about it a lot. The relationship between the characters and their opposition creates your game. That's the foundation you'll build your rules from, and also the dynamic you'll build your rules to create.

Now this is not easy stuff. This leads into a big, challenging theoretical conversation about the social dynamics of roleplaying. You'll need your rules to precisely coordinate the players' interests, the characters' interests, and the evolving in-game situation - "roll to hit, roll damage" is not gonna cut it. Neither is "players should stick to in-character knowledge, GM should fudge when necessary."

You wrote: Having read probably hundreds of different mechanic systems I would conclude that the vast majority are irrelevant variations of other systems, and often are more complex and less useful than the systems they vary from.

lumpley wrote: Better and better.

lumpley wrote: or just in the, I dunno, logistical effort involved?

Greed: a personal question, but one that I feel will help in helping you design your game. Are you one or more of the following:
a) Randist?
b) proponent of the Austrian theory of economy?
c) Objectivist?
d) Anarchist?
More importantly, do you feel that any of these could be the central theoretic background for your game?

There is a twofold reason for asking:
1) Certain of the above, which I won't name to avoid offending anyone, have in the past commonly offered the kind of cheeky opinions you evidence. In their case it's because they think their personal philosophy so superior that they don't have to participate in discussion, they can just concentrate on dissing people. By losing the attitude you get more from the discussion. I refer to how you feel that all games just repeat familiar patterns - I feel the same way about mainstream games, but man, are you mistaken about new independent design!
2) If any of the above should be central to what you want to say in your game, by bringing the ideology forth you can get real help in getting to your design goal! I really love games that truly show colors, and there are many people here who could help you if your real goal is to affirm an ideology or educate others on it.

My suspicion about you having a philosophical agenda stems from what you said about the conceptions of feudalism and magic in the game. I've never met anybody who wanted to debunk fiction that way and didn't have a really strong convinction in the background. Normally people just accept the premise of the fiction and work with it. If this is the case, maybe the best game for you would be one where you can blatantly address that convinction: make a game that educates the player about it, or one that offers a symbolic grounds of discussion between players of (possibly) different philosophical ilks. Or make a game of affirmation, only meant to be played by people who already subscribe to the philosophy!

In any case, if you should have a yearning for this kind of game, tell us about it. Such an agenda goes deeper than just the milieu or setting of the game - system does matter, after all! There's all kinds of stuff to do if you have something to say. I won't offer suggestions without hearing that there really is an ideological background, but rest assured that there is all kinds of stuff. Just look at My Life with Master, the game that proclaims proudly the dictum "Only Love can set you free!"

If my guess was amiss, just say so and we'll drop it.


Oh, for others: I'd better note that I specifically don't want to discuss personal belief as anything but a facet of the game design problem we have here. It'd be nonsensical for us to try to talk about the generic sim fantasy game when Greed is so obviously trying to integrate his own beliefs in there. To help him, we must at least ascertain that he indeed has an ideological goal. That will make everything so much more clear.

Do you envision the PCs working generally together, or generally opposing one another?

Are you interested in the human costs and components of ambition - who will the character screw over to get his way? does the character deserve the loyalty of his people? - or just in the, I dunno, logistical effort involved?

Either way, what opposes the characters? What defines the forces or people or circumstances that stand between them and achieving their goals?

Greed: a personal question, but one that I feel will help in helping you design your game. Are you one or more of the following:
a) Randist?
b) proponent of the Austrian theory of economy?
c) Objectivist?
d) Anarchist?
More importantly, do you feel that any of these could be the central theoretic background for your game?

I've never met anybody who wanted to debunk fiction that way and didn't have a really strong convinction in the background.

Or make a game of affirmation, only meant to be played by people who already subscribe to the philosophy!

GreedIsGod wrote: You can't just have an arbitrary set of 'spells' because that, basically, doesn't make any sense. Okay, if you had deities you could have them (by fiat) handing out edicts, but why in the world would they do that? Not to mention a host of other logical issues with superintelligent, superpowerful immortal transdimensional beings who can't see to conjure up fission power and are obsessed with the actions of little monkeys. So the list-o-spells system clearly isn't going to work as it's neither rational nor internally consistent.

GreedIsGod wrote:
Now here is a magic system that I came up with...(There is) ...a single species which has capacities of quantum probability manipulation, limited by the amount of energy they can produce but overall they are fantastically potent, essentially impervious to harm, immortal and locally omnipotent. The Solars engage in a game whos origin is unknown but is effectively a kind of transgalactic Chess, where they pit members of less evolved species against on another for reasons of entertainment and experiment. Their exact motives are rather mysterious as their mental capacities and psychological construction must obviously be different from humans, but general observation leads to the conclusion that it is a sort of game or experiment...those who are under their auspices are often convinced these Solars are some sort of 'gods' and form various cultic practices around them, especially if they are wont to grant powers and/or communicate with their 'followers'.

Magic is essentially delianated into 'effects', which are similar to spells except being combineable and applicable in clever ways which take into account their literal forces (something not done in your basic AD&D system).

'Researching' spells is either the creative combination of existing effects or by 'petitioning' one's patron Solar (or perhaps some other Solar) to generate some effect, and that petition is then negotiated among the Solars and is reckoned to be accepted or denied.

RJ wrote:

Are you interested in the human costs and components of ambition - who will the character screw over to get his way? does the character deserve the loyalty of his people? - or just in the, I dunno, logistical effort involved?

There are no 'human costs' if one is speaking in terms of long-term benefits such as respect and wealth that sort of thing is best produced via division of labour, IE Capitalism (which isn't fully developed in this world, as it was not in the Feudal Age). If they are interested in political advancement (remember, many of these places are not states at all, have no Body Politic and no 'State') then they will have to either create a crisis to use the Hobbsian myth to justify their imperial coercive powers (most common method use by monarchs and also by Caesar) and in any case a political state and advancement in it is neccesarily 'sum-zero', as it is simply exporpriation for the benefit of the rulers and their friends. In this case the human cost should be obvious and in the monarchistic states I will make this clear in the reduced freedoms and standard of living of people.

Most generally [what opposes the characters] will be people who have specific aims that contradict PC goals, such as relatives who feel they are entitled to inherit a manor and require a military action to establish their claim. Other possible obstacles could be scheming would be politicos, religious leaders and of course monsterous races interfering with them, such as attacking a town they are attempting to build or some such.

Rules will be in three forms one for basic non-intellectual actions such as bashing things, the other will be open-ended rules for social practices that will give the PCs leeway to speak for their character...

...and the third set of rules are largely going to be realistic systems for tracking a logical (but, of course, unrpedictable) feudal economic structure that would allow for more interesting and realistic reactions to PCs flooding a border town with gold, or the building of castles and so forth.

So your objections to previously discarded magic systems has led you full circle to a system that's based off of omnipotent beings granting spells to their followers based on their own mysterious reasons which are beyond human comprehension.

do you expect the players or the characters to be morally concerned about the people they're making to suffer?

This, on the other hand - if you get these rules right, they'll be worth the price of your game. "Right" means three things: 1) they suggest concrete actions and attitudes for named NPCs to take, but 2) in a flexible, inventive, non-repetitive way, and 3) functioning at the moment-to-moment of play - no between-session crunching required.

I kinda like your idea of the Solars playing with the universe. They would give the game a kind of a sci fi twist though.

greedo1379 wrote: I kinda like your idea of the Solars playing with the universe. They would give the game a kind of a sci fi twist though.

lumpley wrote:
Damn. If you make me write any of that shit out on my character sheet, I'm ditchin' out of the game.

"Okay, you score a full success on your Create a Crisis roll. What's your Hobbsian Myth factor?"

"Six! I get a bonus of +3 to my Justify Imperial Coercive Powers test!"

Snerk.

Y'know Gareth, I was thinking about that after I posted, and you're absolutely right.

I hope RJ finds easier, more intuitive language to express it in, is all. A game that captures the dynamics he's interested in - and makes them easy to understand and easy to manipulate - that could be a fun and powerful game.

-Vincent

Between HL2 and working ten hours a day I've had hardly any free time, but this monday I'll collect my notes and put up some additional work.
Tangental aside to anyone else playing HL: Wouldn't it be just great to replace the Dr. Breen model (in HL 2) with GW Bush and the Combine soldiers with police and marines?