Greetings to all!
I'm new here (my first post). I've noticed some familiar names from RPGnet, so some of you may recognize me from there.
Anyway, to get to the point...
I am in the process of trying to develop my own roleplaying game, based on a world I've been writing about, and using for a AD&D campaign. I am heartily sick of AD&D, so I decided to try and do my own thing. With some help I've got the outline of a pretty decent task resolution and combat sytem, but I'm still stumped on one aspect of the game. The magic system. Maybe someone here can suggest some possibilities?

Some background on the game... The setting is sort of a pseudo-victorian fantasy world. With magic and 19th century level technology existing side by side. The game has no classes or levels, it's point-based.

For my magic system, I want to get as far away from D&D as possible. I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional. I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt. I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.
I've got a long-winded description of how I want magic to work & it's probably the best way to explain it, so bear with me, this may get long...

Magic is common. Everyone knows it exists. Anyone with the proper knowledge can wield it. Anyone can cast a spell, but few dare. Magic is risky and dangerous. The practitioners of magic are those willing to take the risk and brave the danger. For those who survive, and persevere, the rewards can be great.
A spell takes energy. The energy to power a spell can come from several sources. The source for at least a portion must be the personal energy of the caster. This is why extensive spell casting, or very powerful spells tend to leave the practitioner weak and exhausted. The caster can power the spell using only his or her own energy reserves, but this is risky. Many practitioners of magic have been severely weakened and even killed by attempting to cast spells in this manner. This is especially dangerous if something goes wrong during the casting of the spell as that same personal energy must be used to try and buffer the backlash of magical energy.
More commonly a magician or wizard will utilize objects or elements sometimes referred to as components to provide part of the energy to fuel the spell. Like fuel these items are consumed during the casting. The value of these items has a great deal to do with the power they provide for the spell. This does not necessarily mean monetary value, though some assume so. In actual practice, a wandering hedge wizard who sacrifices the copper bracelet that is the last reminder of a lost love to power his spell is likely to gain a great deal more power from it than a wealthy mage sacrificing a chest full of gold. The value is relative to the caster. The greater the sacrifice the caster makes, the more energy he will generate to power the spell. But beware, for generating more power than the spell requires can be dangerous as well. Excess magical energy must be burned off carefully (or held, in the case of some truly strong willed mages) or it can backlash and injure the caster, or others near him.
(It probably should be noted that there are certain practitioners who dabble with the sacrifice of living beings. Be it an animal or, for the truly depraved, a human sacrifice, this sort of blood magic is quite powerful. It is theorized that although the being that is sacrificed may have little personal value to the caster, the “cosmic” value of that being’s life force can create a great deal of energy. However the use of such energy will quickly stain the soul of one who practices such dark arts. One considering the gains of traveling down this path, and is unconcerned with the state of his soul, should also consider that most societies rightly frown on this sort of thing.)
The danger of magical backlash is one reason why so many practitioners use a focus. Wands, staffs, rings, bracelets, almost any item, if properly prepared, can act as an energy sink to both store excess power for later use, and buffer the caster against backlash from excess energy generation. They also may serve, along with ritual actions, incantations, the marking of runes, etc as a means to guide and control the energy to properly execute the desired spell. Though many mages will spend small fortunes creating artistic and impressive looking wands and such, there is really no reason that it must look like anything fancy. Strength and durability are more useful traits in a focus than how pretty is. On the other hand, as noted above, many mages are show-offs. Also there are some who insist that the level of detail and the amount of work involved in the creation of the focus have a great deal to do with it’s potential.
The actual casting of a spell is influenced most by skill. The more skillful a practitioner, the more they are able to wield a spell by their force of will. The more willpower, and the greater the skill of the caster, the less he is bound by the use of ritual, runes, sacrifice, and use of a focus. As a rule, the less antics a practitioner goes through to cast a spell the more powerful he probably is. Truly powerful mages may cast spells without so much as blinking as they warp reality by sheer force of will. Such powerful practitioners are few, and likely more tired after such an act than they would ever admit.

Okay (those of you who stuck around for all that), does anyone have any idea how to implement something like this, while keeping it fairly streamlined and fast moving? The closest thing I've seen is the spell creation system Hero Games used for Fantasy Hero back when. They had a list of effects with modifiers that could be used to make the spell cost fewer points to buy (much like they did the super powers for Champions). Something like that could probably meet the basic flexibility part of my magic concept, but the problem is that system was incredibly slow and cumbersome. Action would definitely ground to a halt for an extended period to create a spell on the spot with that system.
Any other ideas?

if you wanted to be really fast and loose about the magic system, consider this: magic can mostly be a "special effect". for example, you probably have a stealth skill, a thrown weapons skill, a lockpicking skill, and so on ... or you have a way to impliment those actions, at the very least.

so why not have a "magic" skill, which allows you to do anything any other skill does, but at an added cost of energy and a potential for backfire?

for 1 energy point (however you handle this,) you can do anything that you could do with a mundane skill, except that the description is "magical". ex: "you brush your fingers on the lock and mutter the words of opening, and hear a satisfying click."

for more energy, you can eliminate restrictions on normal skills: opening the lock without touching it (but still being close enough to touch it) might cost 2 energy points, opening it from a distance might cost 3 points, or 4 points if you can't see the lock... and so on, with point costs for different added effects (area effect, extended duration...)

that's more or less what I'm doing in one of my games.

for added detail, you can require spell casters to specify the magical forces they are using (Fire, Earth, Spirit, Chaos, Life, and so on.) this only has three effects, only two of which are based in the mechanics:



• it affects the description of the spell. this is pure color.
• there can be different rituals, tools, foci, or what have you that, if used in the spell, reduces the backfire effect.
• the specific backfire effect, when it occurs, is influenced by the forces used.



not much more I could say, since any further suggestions would have to be integrated into the rest of your system.

Y'know I kind of like that.
It's not at all what I had in mind, & it changes the whole tone of magic, but I think it might just be for the better.
There are certain elements relating to skills in my game that would make this interesting as well.
Now I must ponder...

Thanks!

One problem here is that I have no idea how your general resolution mechanics work.

I'll assume you're using a target number system, such as D20 - roll dice + ability to beat a target number, although other difficulty level type mechanics could be adapted.

First of all you make a magic skill check against a target number representing the complexity of the magical effect. This has little to do with how much magic power the spell requires. Roll skill + characetristic bonus + dice (for example).

If you beat the target number, record how much you beat it by as a +/- modifier.

Next make a magic power roll, something like Magic Power Ability + Bonus + dice. If you have magic points stored in a wand, crystal, whatever you can choose to spend points from this reservoir and add them as a bonus (deducting them from the storage item) before roling the dice.

After you have rolled the magic power roll you can use the +/- modifier from the magic skill roll to adjust the final total up or down. Idealy you want to adjust the total to exctly the target number. If you get a total above the target number you succeeded but any excess points escape as 'wild magic' that can ahve pseudo-random effects. If your modified total is below the target number, you failed to cast the spell and may suffer some exhaustion penalties from over-exertion in future. If you got the target number dead-on, then the spell goes off perfectly.

Obviously if yor general resolution mechanic is different you might want to adapt this to it. I hope the general idea is of some use though.


Simon Hibbs

A question. A lot of this sounds to me like fairly standard-adventuring-RPG-magic. We have some good but standard symbolic value stuff, a risk of dramatic failure, and prerequisites for magic falling off with skill.

In other words, it sounds like just about every fantasy magic system I've read. Its all very balanced; it has implicit progression and efficiencies of scale and foreshadfowing of evilguy magic. If its really just a mechanic you want, nearly anything will do.*

But my question is: is there something particular this system is meant to do? Is there some role that magic plays in the game world that is important? Are there moral consequences, or is the political landscape influenced by the Big Fish, or what?

Lastly:

Also there are some who insist that the level of detail and the amount of work involved in the creation of the focus have a great deal to do with it’s potential.

Greetings,

madelf wrote: For my magic system, I want to get as far away from D&D as possible. I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional. I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt. I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.
I've got a long-winded description of how I want magic to work & it's probably the best way to explain it, so bear with me, this may get long...

madelf wrote: Magic is common. Everyone knows it exists.
<...> A spell takes energy. The energy to power a spell can come from several sources.

One problem here is that I have no idea how your general resolution mechanics work.

If its really just a mechanic you want, nearly anything will do

But my question is: is there something particular this system is meant to do?

Is there some role that magic plays in the game world that is important?

Well, does it or doesn't it? If these instructions are to be used as play aids, ther player must know whether that is, or is not, a wise investment of their resources.

In the meantime, hope the links help

I think Jonathan's method, nailed down, would serve well. What is it about other systems that make them "unrealistic" to you?

I've never seen a system that didn't have either lists of specific spells, or very clunky spell building mechanics. Admittedly my experience is limited.
I think I'm looking for a non-clunky spell building mechanic, just don't know where to look.

What is it about other systems that make them "unrealistic" to you?

Hi Calvin,

I think it might help to pull a bit back and out from the D&D perspective.

Somewhat harshly, forget D&D. Just pretend it's .... gone. Now think about magic in a role-playing game, and ask, from the ground up, what should this be like? Not in terms of in-game-world physics and energy, but rather, in terms of how to play, by real people.

If your current system seems to be working well for you in this regard, then great! If it still seems a little hitchy or clunky or not-quite-right, tell us how.

I also recommend reading and playing the following games: Castle Falkenstein (original system, not GURPS or d20), Orkworld, The Pool, Unknown Armies, Everway, and most especially Hero Wars (soon to be republished as Hero Quest).

Best,
Ron

madelf wrote: One is that it always seems like the "big gun". It's geared so that doing big flashy damage is more the focus, rather than doing interesting things. I'd like to see magic work on a more day-to-day level if possible. For instance in D&D, it's just as hard to start a campfire as it is to hit your foe with a magical bolt that never misses. Other magic systems I've seen. (Which, I'll grant aren't that many) seem to be the same way. Many also don't take potential failure into account, either you can do it or you can't. There's no wondering if what you're about to try is going to work, or fizzle, or backlash and burn you. I'd like to find a way to make magic more....I don't know, I'm blanking on the right words...flexible, subtle and definitely unstable.

I also find some conflict between when you wrote: I'd like to see magic work on a more day-to-day level if possible

and when you wrote: I'd like to find a way to make magic more...unstable.

Before I begin, I wanted to say Welcome to the Forge!

Here are some ideas that popped through my head while perusing your statements.

madelf wrote: I don't want long lists of spells, no memorization, and I want components and guestures and all that to be optional.
I want spells to be created and cast "on the fly" without spell lists, and without bringing the game to a screeching halt.
I also want magic to be dangerous as hell, especially when mixed with technology.

A magician or wizard will utilize objects or elements sometimes referred to as components to provide part of the energy to fuel the spell
Component items are consumed during the casting.
The value of components has a great deal to do with the power they provide for the spell...The value is relative to the caster.

Extensive spell casting, or very powerful spells tend to leave the practitioner weak and exhausted.
Personal energy must be used to try and buffer the backlash of magical energy if something goes wrong during the casting of the spell.

Generating more power than the spell requires is dangerous. Excess magical energy must be burned off carefully or held, or it will backlash and injure the caster or others near him.
Wands, staffs, rings, bracelets, almost any item, if properly prepared, can act as an energy sink to both store excess power for later use, and buffer the caster against backlash from excess energy generation.
Ritual items also may serve, along with ritual actions, incantations, the marking of runes, etc as a means to guide and control the energy to properly execute the desired spell.
There is no reason a ritual item must look like anything fancy. Strength and durability are more useful traits in a focus than how pretty is.

The actual casting of a spell is influenced most by skill.
The more willpower, and the greater the skill of the caster, the less he is bound by the use of ritual, runes, sacrifice, and use of a focus.

The “cosmic” value of that being’s life force can create a great deal of energy. However the use of such energy will quickly stain the soul of one who practices such dark arts.

On the other hand, as noted above, many mages are show-offs.

I think it might help to pull a bit back and out from the D&D perspective.

If your current system seems to be working well for you in this regard, then great! If it still seems a little hitchy or clunky or not-quite-right, tell us how.

so that skills in which you invest more or get less are more likely to work, and thus "easier".

Unstable magic means reason to avoid its use except in the most extreme circumstances; day-to-day use means reliability (unless there are no reliable alternatives).

I'll carry a rope and a waterskin and two fireball spells.

if the player wants to light a campfire or if he wants to fry the tenth Roman Legion, you (seem to) want your system to provide both of those as possibilities

That means you need some complexity in the system which will provide for that

One question: dangerous to whom? The caster or the affected (or both)? (your statement doesn't really say) And dangerous how? In the case of the caster, might it kill him, or leave him an insane, gibbering nutcase, or either...etc.

My advice for this is to give each item the wizard owns a "personal value" rating. This rating would be used to determine how powerful the resulting magic is when that item is utilized as a component in spell-casting.
Since overuse of personal energy is what burns you out or even kills you, you can use the item to avoid backlash of up to that of the item's PV. If the item has more PV than you need to avoid the backlash, the item is still consumed.

Use the caster's Stamina or Willpower or similar score (or combination thereof) as a pool of points that can be lost through the use of magic. I say can be because rules that require saving throws of a sort to avoid the effect would be a good idea.
So, if you backlash, and can't sink enough of it to avoid the backlash (or want to reduce a BIG backlash), you can use your stamina or will or whatnot to burn off the backlash.

Question: if the energy being used is your own personal energy anyways, how is overdrawing that energy dangerous...by which I mean dangerous as a backlash, not in dangerous as in "Gods, I'm tired! <thunk, snore>" And why would one want to "sink" this excess energy away, since it is one's own energy?

On to the suggestions: when the check to see if the spell is successful is made, if the character rolls over the amount necessary to be successful, they have created excess energy. This can be stored in certain prepared ritual items. The strength/durability of the material functions as the amount of excess energy that can be stored in the item.
If the caster rolls below what is necessary for the spell to be cast successfully, they can deplete these excess energy stores from their prepared ritual items up to the amount required by the spell.
The use of rituals and items also gives the caster a bonus to their roll based on (for example) the length of the ritual, the magickal correspondences of the items used, and so forth. This allows the caster to increase or decrease (their choice) their roll by one point per energy guide used.
This has the side effect of evening-out the caster's spells, allowing him to boost severely under-rolled spells, and deplete severely over-rolled spells, but usually leaves the caster with a few points that will need to be sunk into prepared items.
Skill also provides a modifier to the roll, in whichever direction the character wishes.

Cool idea, but you'll have to back it up with some sort of "black magic" or "stain" score that has some other mechanical effect on the character (perhaps socially, or perhaps in the presence of (good) priests and their spellcraft, or something similar).

Biggest question here is "Why?"
Is there any mechanical reason for mages to be show-offs? If not, this should be supported by the rules. In order for players to cooperate most effectively in portraying their characters, there must be a viable mechanical payoff for the player to do so.

Ok, I hope that all made sense. Just ask about anything that isn't clear and I will attempt to make it so.

(BTW, your post doesn't really belong in RPG Theory, but Indie Game Design, but as I'm sure a moderator will move it over as appropriate.)

madelf wrote:
Magic in my world concept is not reliable. It is however, very common and accessible. Just not particularly safe unless you're very careful,
By day-to-day I meant more... I don't know how to explain it...mundane, or subtle maybe. I don't think the flashy big-budget special effects movie style of magic is necessary, or appropriate for my world.
...
Magic energy can be obtained in two ways. Drawn off the caster's personal energy (by drawing too much you can get tired, conk out, or even die, depending on how much more you draw than your capacity). I think I may want an option in the rules for a spell to "go wild" drawing more power than it's supposed to.

Hi there,

Another useful reference might these discussions from the old Sorcerer mailing list archives:
Magic systems
Magic systems 2

Best,
Ron

I'm thinking this question might be helpful. I don't know that I want you to answer it on the forum, but rather to think about it in great detail and see what answers you have.

Exactly why does magic need to have a system of its own?

You see, Multiverser doesn't have its own magic "system"; magic works essentially the same as everything else, with a few nuances specific to it (just like technology, body skills, psionics, and combat each have specific nuances). When Star Frontiers introduced Psionics (in Zebulon's Guide to the Galaxy), the psi powers didn't have a different system, but just a few nuances that made the system work for them.

If you give something a different system within the game you

• call attention to it• suggest that it's more important• make it seem something different from the rest of the game.

Now, that may be why you want to do it. But if you can figure out exactly why magic needs its own system, then you'll be in a much better place to know exactly what kind of system it needs.

And if you reach the point at which you can say it really doesn't need its own system, but only a few minor tweaks to the core system of the game, you're on your way to building a more cohesive and simpler game system.

Anyway, think about it.

--M. J. Young

OK, this isn't what you are looking for, but I thought I would comment.

Exactly why does magic need to have a system of its own?

Hello. My apologies for being so new to this, and my thanks to the thread: My mind twitches with every post. Here's a thought, anyone is welcome to start a thraed since it is somewhat off topic but still mauls the issue.

Madelf: You're saying the player should be -afraid- of magic. Not necessarily a rough collection of ingredients, and more than a botch. They should actually cringe every time they want to cast it.

I skimmed through some of the links, and didn't find a similarity to this concept I'm thinking (perhaps I should have read more thorough) . . .

Can magic be made into its own combat system?

This means there's not necessarily such thing as a single desired effect that leads only to positive or negative results.

So the practitioner wants to call up a fireball (just the classic example). She's trying to pull it from reality, which opposes her. She runs all sorts of potential risks. The heat from the fireball could use her own body heat which actually freezes her to death? Takes her own soul energy so she becomes comatose or an automaton for certain time, and easily controlled? Is accompanied by some fire creature that it was to come from? Burn her alive? Sends her careening back the way a heavy gunfire might? The valuables she chose are lost without getting anything? Or becomes a "leak" in reality, so the effects are ongoing, like a continuous burning.

More on a limb: Like your shadow in wraith, using magick creates a personal antagonist? You have to roleplay for the spell / duel with dice?

You can let me know, Madelf, if it's way out of what you're looking for.

Best of luck!

madelf wrote: Actually I found your articles quite intriguing.
Although much of the content assumes a pre-technological setting, where mine will have a roughly 19th century level of technology, I find myself agreeing on many of the points you raise.
Unfortunately I think some of them would be difficult to implement. Not sharing all the rules of magic, for instance, can't really work in the scope of a published game. Since the players can also get the book, there is really no way to keep the secret. In the case a homebrew system, where only the GM has access to all the rules, I think this would be a very interesting way to handle magic.

madelf wrote: I very much like your thoughts on making magic more pervasive. Making it be something existing and happening on it's own as opposed to being only something cast by players or npcs. I may have to try and implement something along those lines.
Your conservation of energy section has some elements that I had even previously considered including, such as being able to draw off ever present energy and not having a fixed number of spells, or spell points. I'm also starting to lean toward a more low-powered magic system, much as your example suggests. (I'm more convinced of that than ever after your article on the societal impacts of magic)

madelf wrote: I don't think the religion sections relates much to what I'm working on. The pantheon for my game is pagan, so morality aside, a character could find a deity that would approve of his actions, so the morality restrictions would be kind of moot. I also question whether it was any more a matter of magic being tied up in religion in those times, as it was a matter of life being tied up in religion. Again though, I think for certain settings those ideas would also work well, just not for this particular one.

madelf wrote: All in all, an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Madelf: You're saying the player should be -afraid- of magic. Not necessarily a rough collection of ingredients, and more than a botch. They should actually cringe every time they want to cast it.

Can magic be made into its own combat system?

I do address some of this, by suggesting the idea of hidden variables. i.e. The framework of the system is known, but the system is designed to have hidden information added to it by the GM. For example, the GM might set hidden stats to spells: like drawbacks or complications. The player knows that the hidden stats are there, but they are set by the GM and can only be found out through play.

Well, really the meat of my suggestion is that the whole concept of "conservation of energy" is a modern invention which doesn't necessarily apply to pre-scientific concepts of magic. That is, rather than "drawing off ever-present energy", magic could just not require energy or create it freely as needed. Now, your setting is more modern/scientific in flavor, so the energy paradigm might apply better there. But if you find use out of it at all, then great.

While it is true that some malicious god might approve of your actions, that will likely have drastic religious and social implications

madelf wrote: I believe the social implications are more to the point in this case. Consider, if you will, that an organized religion based on a pagan pantheon consisting of gods of all manner of moralities would be much less likely to lay down the sort of moral and ethical demands that most modern people (being largely monotheistic, and often christian) expect. (I'm afraid I do not agree that pagan religions as a whole are much obsessed with morality, at least not in the sense that it's ordinarily applied. From all the mythology I've read pagan gods are not exactly known for their morals) In the setting I'm visualizing, the "church" would be there to honor and serve the gods. All the gods.
So moral judgements from the church would be all but impossible. I know this is foreign to the very concept of most actual religions, but this is the way it would have to work (at least in my opinion) given these factors.

madelf wrote: Why does magic have to be tied up in religion? Not just because it traditionally has been. This is fantasy. It doesn't have to, and shouldn't, exactly match the historical beliefs of our world. In our world, a literate and scientifically knowledgeable person (with some exceptions of course) would generally not have believed in magic by the Victorian era.

Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science. I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

This produices a number of problems. First of all, no mechanical exploit of the system can be out of bounds. Rationality applies throughout, so for example: if a magician botches 'n burns, do they actually break into flames? Thats clearly a fire hazard in a city; one would assume that practictioners are strictly regulated. [and this raises a system quewstions: will you actually enforce character death on a single unlucky role?]

Byt contrast, consider Agone, which does not have a prtiocularly innovative system per se but does have a marvellous special effect that keeps it magical. To perform magic, a magician has a Dancer, a little blue elf-like thing that they keep about. Dancers... dance, to the musice of the universe, which no-one else can hear, nor do they speak or have much in the way or biogical definition. Some practitioners derive magic by torturing their Dancers and wearing them crucified across their chests.

Now thats magic.

My point is: it is a reasonable and interesting idea for a religion not to have moral authority, but that doesn't necessarily follow from being polytheistic.

But spiritualism and mesmerism, for example, were totally mainstream.

generally

Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science. I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

This produices a number of problems. First of all, no mechanical exploit of the system can be out of bounds.

Rationality applies throughout, so for example: if a magician botches 'n burns, do they actually break into flames?

Thats clearly a fire hazard in a city; one would assume that practictioners are strictly regulated.

[and this raises a system quewstions: will you actually enforce character death on a single unlucky role?]

Byt contrast, consider Agone, which does not have a prtiocularly innovative system per se but does have a marvellous special effect that keeps it magical. To perform magic, a magician has a Dancer, a little blue elf-like thing that they keep about. Dancers... dance, to the musice of the universe, which no-one else can hear, nor do they speak or have much in the way or biogical definition. Some practitioners derive magic by torturing their Dancers and wearing them crucified across their chests.

Calvin W. 'madelf' Camp wrote: Why does magic have to be tied up in religion?...To have that same scientifically knowledgable person know beyond a shadow of a doubt that magic is as real as the air he breaths, changes a few assumptions about magic. At least I think it would. What about a person who is an atheist? Who does not believe in gods, and scorns religion. My introduction says that anyone can use magic. In an age of science, must I maintain that a person must worship a god in order to access a natural energy source? So, you see, a strong religious tie-in really wouldn't be appropriate in this case.

To which Gareth a.k.a. Contracycle wrote: Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science. I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

In response to which Calvin wrote: That's a good point. But if you assume that magic is a natuaral force that anyone can utilize, and that it should not be a religious factor, then that's what you have. Call it magic, call it science, call it whatever you will, it's still the same thing.
Fire is de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed. Does that make it technology? I don't think so, but you may feel differently.
My interpretation (for this particular application) is that magic is a natural force, much like fire, that can be, more or less, controlled using, more or less, scientific principles. I see it as being entirely apart from technology, and rather as a force of nature.

O.K., first, by definition, technology is controlling forces of nature; controlling forces of nature is technology.

Why should atheists have to believe in god to do magic? They shouldn't; but they should have to believe in magic, whatever that is. If magic is a supernatural energy that impinges on and alters the natural world, then to use it you sort of have to accept that there is some sort of supernatural world. If it's nothing more than a natural energy of which we were previously unaware--like radio waves and gamma radiation--then it's not, in my understanding, magic. It's another branch of science and technology.

Now, there's no reason why you couldn't have a world in which that which for centuries has been called magic is now recognized as just another of the forces of nature that can be harnessed by man. In that case, in a Victorian setting you'll undoubtedly have wealthy inventors tinkering with ways to harness it better, trying to understand it, writing books on the subject. What you won't have is anything magical about it. It will be gravity, light, radiation, sound, a known quantity with unknown properties for scientists to study.

Personally I find it distasteful to call it magic when it's just another natural force; but I'm probably in a minority on that.

One thing I forgot to note is the division of natural from supernatural in the definition of magic. This division breaks down very quickly in a fantasy world. And perhaps even more so in a scientific era fantasy world.

When elves, dragons, undead, and magic exist side by side with science and technology, how do you say what is natural and what is super-natural?
By the standards of our world, the entire world of my game is supernatural. But by it's own standards, the same things are entirely part of the natural order. What could possibly be supernatural in that sort of world, where everything we accept as supernatural is commonplace?

I think there's too much emphasis on how magic should be defined based on the parameters of our world, and not enough thought put into how it should be defined within the parameters of a world that is completely unnatural by our standards.

Of course this is entirely my own fault, since I haven't really presented the entire package for discussion, but it still impacts the decisions I must make.

I hate to continue drudging this magic-technology issue when really you're just trying to push through the game concept. But I think I see where it got off track.

"Magic," if found to have its own energy "signature" or its own system beyond our own universe, then "Magic" is a new science. You have astrophysics, you have quantum phyics, you have magic. Because madelf is not suggesting it as a science per se, it's not understood. It's a discovery. It's just a few "tricks" people know but no one can -engineer- magic.

Example: People knew of the seed well before hardly any other technology. But did they understand the seed? Even genetic engineers are not fully aware of how the cell works to produce the plant, although they can now engineer them according to the pattern that nature has given general life.

This reminds me of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (one of my obsessions). Yes, it had become a science but it was still beautiful and mysterious. I guess madelf is doing the same a little earlier in time.

Tell me. Would you be writing your game in a sort of historical review format? People talking about what they've learned, strange things happening? Or strictly technical? (Simulationist vs Gamist again). The former might solve this debate, but the latter means really none of this issue matters (except for our own pleasure, I guess).

I suppose this society, at the very least, has government agencies trying to research magick, because they'll be damned if their country loses a war for their own ignorance. I can't see a very powerful mage as anything other than a target for test subjects, or even a labrat / celebrity.

If technology is bringing about confederations, then mages are probably hired under millitary contract, and "rogues" become a deeply mistrusted media microscope subject. The society might become a bit like the X-Men.

Okay. (1) Magic will only stay mysterious if communication is wiped out or the planet has bigger things to worry about (like in Final Fantasy). (2) Religions, to me, develop like theories that people want to know so badly they just fall on one. Magic has nothing to do with religion, because the things people do are obvious. It's not until you have "clericism." You are -required- to worship in order for the magic to work.

Let me know if I'm repeating a lot here. But IMO science and religion are out of it. Question is will characters have the freedom to explore their abilities without being the victim of fanatic dissection? That depends on you finding creative reasons for them being left alone (whereas our society would tear them apart). I can't even remember what your original question was. *chuckle*

Let me know if I'm repeating a lot here. But IMO science and religion are out of it. Question is will characters have the freedom to explore their abilities without being the victim of fanatic dissection? That depends on you finding creative reasons for them being left alone (whereas our society would tear them apart). I can't even remember what your original question was. *chuckle*

madelf wrote: I'm afraid I do not agree that pagan religions as a whole are much obsessed with morality, at least not in the sense that it's ordinarily applied. From all the mythology I've read pagan gods are not exactly known for their morals.

I believe the social implications are more to the point in this case. Consider, if you will, that an organized religion based on a pagan pantheon consisting of gods of all manner of moralities would be much less likely to lay down the sort of moral and ethical demands that most modern people (being largely monotheistic, and often christian) expect.

A couple important points I'd like to make, before I go any further...

1)This is a game. A fantasy game. It needs no more basis on the actual historical interrelationships of science, magic and religion than I care to give it.
2)Trying to apply real-world historical or religious viewpoints to a fantasy world is an exercise in futility. It is not our world. Things don't have to have developed along the same lines that they did in our world, because the world itself is different.

I can state factually that you are very, very mistaken in your assessments -- you are, in fact, 180 degrees off the mark.

Society "creates" religion to reinforce and uphold its social mores and concepts of right and wrong -- or vice versa, religion creates a foundation for society based on its social mores and customs.

As you can see, the two are so interwoven, they are functionally inseperable, especially when discussing pre-modern civilizations (which relied on the temple and priests as the focal-point around which their entire society moved).

Polytheistic pagan religions enforce morality as much as monotheistic religions do, and have done so throughout time: the religious underpinings and beliefs of a society create a map of that culture and its moral beliefs, its accepted behaviors, and its views of the world and its workings. Pagan religions are thus equally as "obsessed with morality" -- that is, with seperating right action and wrong action, with ensuring correct social order is kept -- as are the monotheistic religions you reference.

I suggest you examine the ancient Chinese religion, Egyptian religion, and Norse religion to start with. I'm not talking about books of myths about the gods of those cultures; I'm talking about actually studying the religion itself, which resemble the myths about as much as real-life in the middle ages resembles fairy tales. The point, of course, being that the myths, like the fairy tale, are metaphors, not necessarily representative of real beliefs or social behaviors, actions, or events.

For example, there is a lengthy chapter in the Poetic Edda with verses describing the path to wisdom, spoken by Odin. The beliefs reflected therein were immediately relevant to worshippers of Thor, Freyr, Odin, and any other Norse deity you care to name becuase they embodied the acceptable and correct behaviors of the Norse culture.

Before I could answer to this, I would need to know if you were talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods and spirits, or a real pantheon of the same. Fantasy pantheons are largely fantastical crocks bearing no resemblance to any actual, real-world religion(s) or god(s) that does or ever has existed, even if and when they borrow names and mythologies.

Unfortunately, much of what you're stating here seems to come from "gamebook knowledge" of how paganism or polytheistic societies operate(d) and behave(d), and gamebook knowledge is sorely lacking any realistic basis upon which to form opinions.

I'm sorry to harp on so long about it, but this is a serious design flaw in most games, and a serious, gaping hole in the understanding of most Western-educated authors (game and otherwise); and hence why John's point about magic being tied up in religion in ancient times stands: even in the oldest religions, the priests were always the carriers of magical knowledge and knowledge in general.

For example, shamanism is the oldest form of religion on our world, and clearly, the shaman is the individual gifted with supernatural, magical powers. The same goes for any magical society of recent lineage (such as the Golden Dawn) you care to examine: following magical history and development, you find it steeped in nothing other than religious lore.

Throughout history, magic is never considered an arcane technology or science -- though study and examination are certainly part and parcel of it, as with science, the fundamentals are supernatural and religious in nature. Thus, like society, a society's magic is inseperable from its religion

This is a great deal to consider in regards to your game.

madelf wrote: A couple important points I'd like to make, before I go any further...

1)This is a game. A fantasy game. It needs no more basis on the actual historical interrelationships of science, magic and religion than I care to give it.
2)Trying to apply real-world historical or religious viewpoints to a fantasy world is an exercise in futility. It is not our world. Things don't have to have developed along the same lines that they did in our world, because the world itself is different.

I can state factually that you are very, very mistaken in your assessments -- you are, in fact, 180 degrees off the mark.

I have to respectfully disagree. I am not a pagan priest, or a student of ancient religions, but I have read enough to indicate quite clearly to me that many pagan gods even had different aspects within the same entity that would be conflicting by modern standards of morality. And really whether that is accurate isn't really an issue, as I am not attempting to recreate a realistic historical setting.

Society "creates" religion to reinforce and uphold its social mores and concepts of right and wrong -- or vice versa, religion creates a foundation for society based on its social mores and customs.

I agree that in the world we know, societies create religions. However, in a fantasy world, where gods "walk the earth" and are not the direct result of human influence, this goes completely out the window. In a fantasy world, it is possible that the gods created religion, and the people follow it because the gods want them to. The rules are changed.

As you can see, the two are so interwoven, they are functionally inseperable, especially when discussing pre-modern civilizations (which relied on the temple and priests as the focal-point around which their entire society moved).

Again this only applies to the historical real world. In a fictional setting this can apply or not as the author sees fit. And even if I were trying to be accurate, I'm relatively certain that the entire society of the 19th century did not revolve around the temple and priests.

Polytheistic pagan religions enforce morality as much as monotheistic religions do, and have done so throughout time: the religious underpinings and beliefs of a society create a map of that culture and its moral beliefs, its accepted behaviors, and its views of the world and its workings. Pagan religions are thus equally as "obsessed with morality" -- that is, with seperating right action and wrong action, with ensuring correct social order is kept -- as are the monotheistic religions you reference.

I will bow to your greater knowledge in this area, and accept that this is true. It is still completely irrelevant.

I suggest you examine the ancient Chinese religion, Egyptian religion, and Norse religion to start with. I'm not talking about books of myths about the gods of those cultures; I'm talking about actually studying the religion itself, which resemble the myths about as much as real-life in the middle ages resembles fairy tales. The point, of course, being that the myths, like the fairy tale, are metaphors, not necessarily representative of real beliefs or social behaviors, actions, or events.

No offense, but I have a little too much on my plate right now to do exhaustive research of ancient religions for a game which is not intended to accurately reflect any ancient religion of our world.
I do grant that you have a very good point here, and I may just do some more in depth research when I have more time. I'd be interested in seeing the differences between the myth and the religion. Can you reccomend a good starting source? (Preferably for the celtic religion, as that would be most useful for my next project)

For example, there is a lengthy chapter in the Poetic Edda with verses describing the path to wisdom, spoken by Odin. The beliefs reflected therein were immediately relevant to worshippers of Thor, Freyr, Odin, and any other Norse deity you care to name becuase they embodied the acceptable and correct behaviors of the Norse culture.

This goes back to your point of society creating religion. The dieties seemed right for the Norse, because they invented them for all intents and purposes. Things might have gone a little differently if Thor, Freyr, and Odin came down in person and started kicking ass until people fell in line.

Before I could answer to this, I would need to know if you were talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods and spirits, or a real pantheon of the same. Fantasy pantheons are largely fantastical crocks bearing no resemblance to any actual, real-world religion(s) or god(s) that does or ever has existed, even if and when they borrow names and mythologies.

I am talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods which is a largely fantastical crock bearing little resemblance to the actual real-world religion from which I have borrowed names and mythologies.
Well, actually I was talking about magic, but since it came up...

Unfortunately, much of what you're stating here seems to come from "gamebook knowledge" of how paganism or polytheistic societies operate(d) and behave(d), and gamebook knowledge is sorely lacking any realistic basis upon which to form opinions.

Actually nothing I'm stating here comes from game book knowledge. It comes from a casual aquaintence with mythology and a bit of light research. But, you really want to know why my concept sounds like a game book religion? I'm writing a game book.

I'm sorry to harp on so long about it, but this is a serious design flaw in most games, and a serious, gaping hole in the understanding of most Western-educated authors (game and otherwise); and hence why John's point about magic being tied up in religion in ancient times stands: even in the oldest religions, the priests were always the carriers of magical knowledge and knowledge in general.

Are you sure this is a design flaw, and not a concious decision made in the effort to keep an enjoyable fantasy game from being an historical treatise on ancient religions?
And why do people keep talking about ancient times and oldest religions?
The time period of my game corresponds to only about 150 years ago.

For example, shamanism is the oldest form of religion on our world, and clearly, the shaman is the individual gifted with supernatural, magical powers. The same goes for any magical society of recent lineage (such as the Golden Dawn) you care to examine: following magical history and development, you find it steeped in nothing other than religious lore.

Sorry, but this (as realistic as it may be) violates the basic premise of the magic system I am developing for my game. It cannot be tied up in religion.

Throughout history, magic is never considered an arcane technology or science -- though study and examination are certainly part and parcel of it, as with science, the fundamentals are supernatural and religious in nature. Thus, like society, a society's magic is inseperable from its religion

No. It is not inseperable. In our history, it was not seperated. That does not mean that in a fictional setting it cannot be.

This is a great deal to consider in regards to your game.

As interesting as this is, and as usefull as it would be if I were doing a more realistic real-world setting with working magic type of game, this has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with my game.

You have to understand (well I guess you don't really have to, but it would be nice) that I don't really want this game to accurately reflect the real world. That is not my intent. All of the points brought up, with all the historical references, regarding the relationships between society, religion, and magic are all very interesting. It's almost enough to make me want to design a realistic game setting in order to use all of these ideas.
Really, this stuff is great. It's just not appropriate.
You're trying to place accurate and historical societal/religious judgements onto a world where those things simply don't belong.
You're trying to create a fantasy world that is very much like our world, except that all the un-scientific beliefs are true. I enjoy fiction of that type, and I would probably enjoy a game of that type. But that's not what this current project is about. This is about a world that is different than ours.

As another pagan priest, I just want to say that not all of Raven's arguments hold up - defining morality, social mores, and such like can be very difficult, and a very tricky matter. It's a matter of perception. I'm not saying you're wrong, Raven, just that it gets a lot more complicated than you suggest.

That said, I also agree with Mad Elf. It's a game. Anything can go, and it doesn't have to reflect this reality in any way.

Mad Elf - if you want Celtic, a good basic myth to start with is the Mabingion, the largest part of the Welsh pagan tradition. It's a good start because it's fairly short, and because it shows influnece from the Norse and the Irish also. From there, moving into Irish myth, the best representation of Celtic myth, but also the most complex, becomes a little easier.

Aidan

I created a separate thread relating to this, regarding paganism, right here.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7304

I'd say that's a perfect place to let fur fly and be really frank. However . . .

I have new questions about your game.

I had forgotten some things you had already addressed, when I last posted. I believe this is now clear: Magic here is perfectly acceptable, a rational usage, although not understood.

Okay. This post is a strict debate on how people in your world might address it, and again it lacks anything to do with your system. If that's what you need to get at then perhaps skip this for another time and we'll stick to mechanics.

1) Magic and pollution. If people have discovered effects of pollution and other subtle global effects: People might be realizing that whatever you do, if you don't understand it, it might not be good to do it.

So therefore, you could even get rallies (I know it's silly, but you have to wonder if it'd happen). People wanting laws restricting magic until further studied. Maybe theories have developed to say that magic depletes the manna in the universe . . . IN FACT!

If you'd really like to get some science issue, I'd love to mention: QUINTESCENCE!

Those who play Mage: The Ascension automatically know of this. But did you know it is an actual term used in atrophysics? I have a magazine article which discusses it in detail. I can find it, OCR and post it if you want me to.

Quintescence is derived from the fifth element (Latin: "quinta"). The only element that holds things up rather than binds things together. -Repels- instead of compelling. I know it's far from magic, but really it adds a nice touch to make this a real scientiffic issue (what the hell. It'll educate your gamers).

So words like Manna / Quintescence. Some might feel that it's having adverse effects on the universe. Usually, anything unnatural is upsetting to the way nature has righted itself. If Magic only came with the human species, it's much like the concept of mass-war and pollution.

2) Magic would sooner or later become extremely political. You need different organizations of different mages. They probably accompany different suits. It all depends precisely how difficult and wavering magic ability can be. If a person says: "We're only hiring you on this base if you can repeatedly cast this spell at all times."

3) Magic as an industry. This becomes a problem. Again on the X-men thing. I've often asked myself this . . .

Wouldn't someone like cyclops serve more purpose in a boiling plant than in crime fighting? I mean if you think about this: Just leaving his eyes open, standing in front of a huge water vat all day long, how much water could he boil for free so a lot of people can have warm homes? :) :) No, this is serious. If you're going to make all sorts of incredible super powers, you have to ask yourself if they actually end up being appropriate for incredibly mundane jobs.

All I can think of for now. Hopefully this at least progresses your game development.

permacultureguerilla wrote: "Magic," if found to have its own energy "signature" or its own system beyond our own universe, then "Magic" is a new science. You have astrophysics, you have quantum phyics, you have magic. Because madelf is not suggesting it as a science per se, it's not understood. It's a discovery. It's just a few "tricks" people know but no one can -engineer- magic.

Example: People knew of the seed well before hardly any other technology. But did they understand the seed? Even genetic engineers are not fully aware of how the cell works to produce the plant, although they can now engineer them according to the pattern that nature has given general life.
...
I suppose this society, at the very least, has government agencies trying to research magick, because they'll be damned if their country loses a war for their own ignorance. I can't see a very powerful mage as anything other than a target for test subjects, or even a labrat / celebrity.

Mad Elf - if you want Celtic, a good basic myth to start with is the Mabingion, the largest part of the Welsh pagan tradition. It's a good start because it's fairly short, and because it shows influnece from the Norse and the Irish also. From there, moving into Irish myth, the best representation of Celtic myth, but also the most complex, becomes a little easier.

I created a separate thread relating to this, regarding paganism, right here.

Magic here is perfectly acceptable, a rational usage, although not understood.

If that's what you need to get at then perhaps skip this for another time and we'll stick to mechanics

Magic and pollution. If people have discovered effects of pollution and other subtle global effects: People might be realizing that whatever you do, if you don't understand it, it might not be good to do it.

Usually, anything unnatural is upsetting to the way nature has righted itself. If Magic only came with the human species, it's much like the concept of mass-war and pollution.

Magic would sooner or later become extremely political.

You need different organizations of different mages. They probably accompany different suits.

It all depends precisely how difficult and wavering magic ability can be. If a person says: "We're only hiring you on this base if you can repeatedly cast this spell at all times."

Wouldn't someone like cyclops serve more purpose in a boiling plant than in crime fighting? I mean if you think about this: Just leaving his eyes open, standing in front of a huge water vat all day long, how much water could he boil for free so a lot of people can have warm homes? :) :) No, this is serious. If you're going to make all sorts of incredible super powers, you have to ask yourself if they actually end up being appropriate for incredibly mundane jobs.

madelf wrote: quite clearly to me that many pagan gods even had different aspects within the same entity that would be conflicting by modern standards of morality.

And really whether that is accurate isn't really an issue, as I am not attempting to recreate a realistic historical setting.

taalyn wrote: I'm not saying you're wrong, Raven, just that it gets a lot more complicated than you suggest.

This is a discussion that more correctly belongs on another board entirely, or in private messages, so that's where I'll leave it given your following statement about the real-world's development being irrelevant to the game world.

Heads up, though, when you use "what happens in the real world" in responses (as with the paganism & morality issue), other folks in the discussion get the idea that you're trying to model reality since your arguments are about how the real world works, hence why I brought all this up.

As it isn't useful to you, since we aren't discussing a real-world model, or anything based on real-world models, feel free to ignore it. The subject can be dismissed, and the discussion moved on to something else, or ended.

Just as an additional note.

I did it again with the pollution issue, didn't I?
Referencing the real world in one breath, and insisting that the real world has no application with the next.

let me try to clarify. I'm probably going to refer to our world again because...well it's the only one we got. And some elements of my game setting are based on the real world. I guess what I need to specify is that I'm only basing things on the real world up to the point where my goals for the world require it to diverge from our own.
The religious magic thing for instance...doesn't work with the concept, can't use it.
The victorian ignorance, or avoidance, of the issues of pollution... works, I'll use it.

I hope that helps clarify my ramblings.
Sorry if I've confused anyone.

With a bit of outside help, I've come to realize that some of my posts in response to the religious issues may have come across a bit more reactionary than I intended, if not downright pissy.

All I can say, and it's not much of a defense, is that the discussion reached a point where I began to get defensive about what I (probably wrongly) perceived as an insistance that my game must deal with religion in a realistic manner whether I liked it or not. Fortunately this issue has been resolved, and hopefully clarified enough that there is no longer so much confusion on all sides.

It still remains, however, for me to apologize for the tone of some of my posts. They were more harsh and dismissive than was called for, or intended. To all those who were the targets of those comments, please accept my apologies.

I know personally, if anything you've said were directed toward me I would not take offence. But that's me. Paganism was always a big issue with me, but I shouldn't be drawing out some soap opera about it.

Also, I rarely see people so careful with their comments except on this forum (of course, I vent on other forums where I'm welcome to be "pissy" lol. I can be pretty darn "colourful").

Since I want this post to be of use, though, I did have some thoughts on summarizing issues in your game. I'm hoping to boil them down to several phrases. I am "doing unto others as I would have them do unto me" in general. But not importantly.

1) Fear of magic. We've summarized that the threats magic poses are intense, but not complex. You can be "burned" or what-not. You're hoping for a better term.

2) Victorian era means the place is not pretty. I have a few remarks regarding victorian culture as well (here comes another debate, lol). Oh-- sparked thought: Are you repeating the era or some history as well? I'd hate to have to incorporate into my game the clash between Native Americans and europeans, etc etc.

Does it just simulate the era and not the map? The latter would save you the complications I mentioned.

3) So it's science, but not splitting hairs (or atoms). It's gardening before the genome. I can picture a soldier talking . . .

"Me and the squad were out on a seven-eighty-two. We were supposed to get the brits, and they called on one of them black mages. He burned half my crew and I survived under one of my comrade's bodies . . . " That might be a little too modern.

Really, a lot of this seems pretty basic. I also imagine kids in school, one of the first thing they're tested for is witchery / wizardry. Actually, a lot of third world countries probably have better programs for kids simply because they want to see if they have potential. And then there'd be mages that stay secret. Even people who aren't practitioners are probably questioned and interrogated occasionally.

I still have to bring up the mundane job thing, forgive me :(. Like what if one can cast a spell that has a use which isn't constant but common. Like lifting library books off and on the top shelf :) I know, I can't drop it.

I know personally, if anything you've said were directed toward me I would not take offence. But that's me. Paganism was always a big issue with me, but I shouldn't be drawing out some soap opera about it.

Oh-- sparked thought: Are you repeating the era or some history as well? I'd hate to have to incorporate into my game the clash between Native Americans and europeans, etc etc.

"Me and the squad were out on a seven-eighty-two. We were supposed to get the brits, and they called on one of them black mages. He burned half my crew and I survived under one of my comrade's bodies . . . " That might be a little too modern.

I also imagine kids in school, one of the first thing they're tested for is witchery / wizardry. Actually, a lot of third world countries probably have better programs for kids simply because they want to see if they have potential.

And then there'd be mages that stay secret. Even people who aren't practitioners are probably questioned and interrogated occasionally.

I still have to bring up the mundane job thing, forgive me :(. Like what if one can cast a spell that has a use which isn't constant but common. Like lifting library books off and on the top shelf :) I know, I can't drop it.

madelf wrote: I just had some things that came out sounding a little different than I intended. Hopefully I didn't upset anyone too much, but just in case I did, I wanted to address it.

Overall I'm enjoying the questions and suggestions. Even when I respond with answers that shoot down the suggestions, or explain away the questions, it still helps me to solidify my concept.

I think the problem is when you start talking about magic, gods and religion people naturaly assume that you are using these terms in familiar ways. If in fact 'magic', 'gods' and 'religion' bear little or no resemblence to what people normaly assume those terms to refer to, confusion is almost guaranteed. Especialy when you put in comments on real religion in the same paragraph, with no seperation of terms.

It seems (to me) that your setting is realy a low-powered, gritty superhero game set 150 years ago, but with the pseudo-scientific terminology superhero games usualy use replaced with pseudo-pagan gloss. You even talk about 'energy sources' and such in much the same way that superhero games do.

I'm not realy clear where the pagan curch comes from though. In the history of your game, how did it start? If your game diverges from real history at some point, was it based on existing real pagan religions, or was it created from whole cloth and just given a pagan veneer (seems more likely). Who are the 'pagan gods' realy? They sound like powerful aliens, or something similar. Did they only appear recently in your game world, or have they always been around and actual real-world religions never realy existed in your game world?

Ever since Stargate, I've liked the concept of Ra. Before Ra, the "cartographed myth," I guess I could call it, is pretty obscure.

Thus: Any time I have an Earth-similar concept where Gods were in history, I start it with Ra, the sun god symbolized by the golden calf. Kind of a ringleader. Of course, then is Gaia- somewhat the opposite. Mother to all the other greek Gods. Perhaps Ra would have left egypt when the jews were no longer enslaved. I realize this has gone way off your intentions, and I don't know if it's all accurate.

Okay. I can live with that definition. Call it anything you like. But is there really any difference between a traditional fantasy game (D&D for instance) and a superhero game if you apply those criteria?

I had this longwinded essay, but the stupid thing didn't post & I lost it. So to briefly make the same points....

Probably not, no, because trad. fantasy games are pretty much content free. So, I didn't make the reccomendation earlier, but have you read the Fantasy Heartbreakers articles? I think they are worth a browse.

madelf wrote:
I don't understand what you're saying here. I thought the point of your heartbreakers articles was that "traditional fantasy" games (ie: heartbreakers) were D&D based, & thus lacking in original content.
I don't see how this relates to the possiblity of defining D&D itself as a pseudo-medieval super-heroes game.

It is a fantasy game (by my definitions), it does have fantasy races, and the setting could probably be used in D&D pretty easily. It's intended to be a good fun swords & sorcery meets six-guns & steam pseudo-victorian fantasy game (because I like good old fashioned swords & sorcery, darn it ) and hopefully it won't break any hearts.

Why does it have fantasy races? What particular effect are they there to achieve, or are they just there because Thats What RPG Is?

Similarly, why is you magic so balanced and prone to disastrous consequences? Is this in ordert ot detail a specific idea or principle, or just because of the chimerical "Balance"?

Why does magic even exist at all, if its really Weird Science? How are you going to achieve a sword and sorcery feel if magic is no more significant than steam power? (which incidentally also has a chance of going horribly wrong and killing you).

The problem with Heartbreakers is that they have a nugget of gold buried under a mountian of dross, most of it brought about by dubious expectations about what is required in an RPG.

Sure. It's not impossible... thats why my first question to you was why the magic system was there and if it was there for a specific purpose. And I understood your answer to be generally No.

(and I believe steam, unless you're talking about a highly experimental device, is fairly relaible and predictable

If you build a steam powered machine to do one thing, then that's what it does.

I think equally risky is discounting elements of an rpg simply because they aren't what you would have done. For instance, you seem to be encouraging me to dump magic and fantasy races from my game, apparently because they simply aren't required.

The expectation that simply because a game has magic and fantasy races, it must be done out of ignorance, or assumption of "requirements" you don't agree with, is as wrong as the "heartbreaker" approach.

It all depends on the metallurgy, which is not so predictable. Its not the steam thats important, its the case that its in. There's nothing inherent to steam technology that could not have been built in the Bronze Age, barring reliable quality metallurgy.

Actually not true - all steanm engines do the same thing, which is drive a piston. The cotton mills, frex, had complicated systems of bars, pulleys, chains and levers to distribute the fiorce from the piston to mutliple machines on multiuple floors. You can almost always remove the actual steam engine as a distinct component and fit it to something else.

Not exactly. Conceded, I do think races in RPG's are mostly dross and of little value in actual play. More specifically, my criticism is that I don't think theres a point in introducing a McGuffin unless the McGuffin is important.

It would be if I had leaped to that assumption. But that is why I asked about what magic was there fore, and tried to discuss other games which have made magic more central to their play and setting.