Should magic be reliable?
Jem Lewis
Thraka <spam_fra...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<335209...@earthlink.net>...
> woodelf wrote:
> >
> > In article <334F2B...@earthlink.net>,
spam_fra...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > i could have learned to sing just by practicing until i
> > sounded like someone who sang well, and many people do just that. as
it
> > is, i learned to sing from someone who knew how one sings, and why we
do
> > the various things we do to sing, and so i know exactly what i'm doing
an
> > dwhy, and can thus vary the technique in response to new situations.
>
> And I suggest that your category of singing is far from empirical. You
> judge good singing by what you consider 'good', and people differ here.
> Consider operah, vs country music.
>
Not that I really want to jump into this, but what if magic were more like
singing than shoemaking? There are singers who seem to be "good" in some
hard to define way, I may not like *what* they sing or *how* they sing, but
I can't deny that they may do it well, or that they have an impressive
voice or volume or whatever. A very good musician can usually sing pretty
well on most occasions (with a little warmup). Yet I would argue there is
not really a *science* to follow to be a good singer. There are tricks and
lessons that help, but there's no "Stand this way and you can sing b flat
in tune" kind of direction. And even a professional singer has off days.
Try to sing after drinking a gallon of milk, or sing and eat a peanut
butter sandwich at the same time, or try to sing whilst a horde of very
angry people with sharp swords rushes towards you with the intent to remove
the rather tight bond between head and neck.
Even with things that should be purely science, like math and computer
programming and chemistry, there is that intangible thing called "talent"
which allows one person to follow the recipe and achieve results, and
another follows the same "recipe" and gets a smoldering mess.
Or how about snowflakes? There's a well-known process that governs
snowflake formation, yet I challenge you to find two identical flakes
within your lifetime. So, why should magic produce definable, codified
results each time? Too much arm shake there, a little sniffle in the
incant, and boom! Something else came up, totally unexpected.
I don't know, just a few thoughts.
Jem Lewis
jlewis...@bitterroot.net
Robert D. Loper, Jr.
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Jem Lewis wrote:
> Or how about snowflakes? There's a well-known process that governs
> snowflake formation, yet I challenge you to find two identical flakes
> within your lifetime. So, why should magic produce definable, codified
> results each time? Too much arm shake there, a little sniffle in the
> incant, and boom! Something else came up, totally unexpected.
That's why apprentices spend so much time studying and practicing.
Also, if a spell is *very* unpredictable, no sane magician would try to
cast it (except in extreme circumstances). If magic is wholly
unpredictable, I foresee the following consequences:
1. *Very* few magicians. You'd probably see more magicians kill
themselves with "miscastings."
2. Hatred of magicians. If magic is so unpredictable, no sane population
will want someone around who might kill with a misthought. Then again,
you might see a hatred/jealousy of magicians even when magic is
predictable...
3. High danger. If magic is random, some mage might eventually
(accidentally or not) stumble upon the spell that destroys the world,
or causes some other catastrophic event.
4. Few or no spells. If magic is wholly random, then no spell is
guaranteed to produce even *remotely* the same effects when cast
repeatedly. If that's the case, what's the point of learning more than
one spell (or any spells)?
Perhaps my physics training is showing (grin), but I prefer to deal
with a magic system that is at least partially predictable. Of course,
that doesn't mean that magic should be *entirely* predictable. Even
science isn't *entirely* predictable--think about the inherently
probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. On the other hand, QM allows
one to make reasonable predictions for events, based upon the probability
for occurrence of that event. The same goes for statistical mechanics.
Of course, that doesn't mean (as someone else suggested) that the players
or characters necessarily *know* the "physics of magic" (or thaumatology,
as it were). Sometimes, the search for the answers is more interesting
than the answer itself. Then again, maybe that's my physics training
showing through again... :)
----
Robert D. Loper, Jr. Graduate Student, UTDallas Physics Dept.
lo...@utdallas.edu http://www.utdallas.edu/~loper/
"Okay, so maybe I care. Maybe my problem is that I care too much."
Sea Wasp
Jem Lewis wrote:
> well on most occasions (with a little warmup). Yet I would argue there is
> not really a *science* to follow to be a good singer. There are tricks and
> lessons that help, but there's no "Stand this way and you can sing b flat
> in tune" kind of direction. And even a professional singer has off days.
Yes, but professionals, or even well-trained amateurs like myself, KNOW
when we're having an off-day. And if making a singing mistake was
DANGEROUS (as it might be in magical worlds) then you'd either learn to
know this before you ever sang a note, or be very careful to warm up
properly before doing it.
> Try to sing after drinking a gallon of milk, or sing and eat a peanut
> butter sandwich at the same time, or try to sing whilst a horde of very
> angry people with sharp swords rushes towards you with the intent to remove
> the rather tight bond between head and neck.
And that's usually taken into account in RPG magic (the latter one,
anyway). Very few systems make magic reliable IN BATTLE CONDITIONS. But
magic ITSELF is reliable, it's only the human component's ability to
reproduce the proper formulae under stress that's unreliable.
Mathematics is utterly reliable, but try doing a differential equation
when angry people with swords, etc. (Who was it ... can't remember the
author's name... wrote a series where math basically equaled magic,
equations were spells, and so on; quite funny). In the lab, however,
magic IS reliable. Do x, do y, chant Z, and the same thing happens every
time.
>
> Even with things that should be purely science, like math and computer
> programming and chemistry, there is that intangible thing called "talent"
> which allows one person to follow the recipe and achieve results, and
> another follows the same "recipe" and gets a smoldering mess.
It's not intangible. It's very tangible. Usually "talent" means
"watches what he/she does carefully". Watch the people in a video
camera, and you'll find that the one who gets a smoldering mess DIDN'T
follow the recipe; they THOUGHT they did, but they mixed something up.
This doesn't mean that chemistry is not reliable; it means that PEOPLE
are unreliable.
>
> Or how about snowflakes? There's a well-known process that governs
> snowflake formation, yet I challenge you to find two identical flakes
> within your lifetime.
It's been done several times. The "no identical snowflake" thing is an
urban myth. There are a LOT of different snowflake shapes, yes, but you
can find ones that are identical down to just about any level you care
to name, as long as you're willing to accept differences of impurities.
I've actually seen two identical snowflakes; unfortunately, preserving
them wasn't possible.
So, why should magic produce definable, codified
> results each time? Too much arm shake there, a little sniffle in the
> incant, and boom! Something else came up, totally unexpected.
But again, there it's not the MAGIC that's unreliable, it's the person.
If the person did the right thing the right way, it should work the same
way every time. And, in fact, if it wasn't actually EFFECTIVELY pretty
reliable, no one would use it. You couldn't teach it effectively or
safely, and it wouldn't be very useful. After all, if you can't be sure
if you're going to get a fireball or a summoned elephant today, what's
the point?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Phlod
In article <347CF4...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
*sigh* Every fiber of my being is screaming for me not to get into this
discussion, but, the temptation is too much! ;)
>
>> well on most occasions (with a little warmup). Yet I would argue there is
>> not really a *science* to follow to be a good singer. There are tricks and
>> lessons that help, but there's no "Stand this way and you can sing b flat
>> in tune" kind of direction. And even a professional singer has off days.
>
> Yes, but professionals, or even well-trained amateurs like myself, KNOW
>
>when we're having an off-day. And if making a singing mistake was
>DANGEROUS (as it might be in magical worlds) then you'd either learn to
>know this before you ever sang a note, or be very careful to warm up
>properly before doing it.
Hmmm... I'd say the singing analogy is a pretty good one, I like it. :)
Let's see if I can run with it a bit.
Re: Off days. When you're voice is having an off day, unless you're obviously
hoarse or some such, you really don't know until you try to sing a little. Of
course, singing a verse and realising you're totally off for no discernable
reason is a touch easier to determine, and potentially safer than casting a
spell and having a block of iron land on you, or some such. But, again, you
usually don't know till you try.
On the other hand, unlike with spellcasting in a game, when your voice is off
for one verse of a song, it's generally gonna be off all day, or at the very
least it's prolly not gonna be back on, suddenly, when you sing the next bar!
Very unlike the probability of your next spell working when rolling the dice!
>reproduce the proper formulae under stress that's unreliable.
>Mathematics is utterly reliable, but try doing a differential equation
>when angry people with swords, etc. (Who was it ... can't remember the
>author's name... wrote a series where math basically equaled magic,
>equations were spells, and so on; quite funny). In the lab, however,
>magic IS reliable. Do x, do y, chant Z, and the same thing happens every
>time.
Personally, I would resist the attempt to make spellcasting into
mathematical-like terms. I realise that may be easier for some to conceive
of, but bear with me please. Because, if magic is like mathematics, then those
who argue the 'same nearly every time' line are quite right! The only
variables in such magic would be whether they did every step exactly right,
and if not, obviously it wouldn't work, or would give something else entirely!
And, in such a setting, any apprentice worth his salt at all had better have
practiced his spells to the point where his margin of error was *really* close
to nil in non-stressful situations, and even in stressful situations could let
muscle memory take over if need be.
However, if you look at it from a more 'artistic' sort of view, then it
becomes not, 'did I execute every step correctly', but something very
different -- which can be quite different depending on how magical working,
and magical force is conceptualized in the setting. For instance, pretend for
a moment that instead of magic simply being a set of 'steps' that one executes
in proper order to glean the desired result, the 'steps' one takes are simply
a catylist to get one's mind in the proper frame to shape the magical energies
in the desired way. In such a framework magic could be very variable as to
whether it works or not. I would not say that instead of a fireball one might
conjure up an elephant, because whether you were totally successful in
attaining the exact frame of mind to do exactly what you aimed to do, it is
*highly* unlikely that the frame of mind would go from 'blast bad guys with
lotsa burny-type firey stuff' to 'Gee, I've always really wanted a pet
pachyderm!'
You'd likely get a result similar, but not quite what you wanted. I.e., the
somatic effect might be the same, but much reduced because of lack of
concentration, or if concentration was totally broken, perhaps it might
backfire on the caster, or just fail altogether. Again, it depends on how
magical forces are conceptualized. (If you begin focusing magical energy, and
don't finish, does it just dissipate, do you get partial results, or does the
energy not like to be disturbed and strike out against the one interrupting
its happy slumber?)
> It's not intangible. It's very tangible. Usually "talent" means
>"watches what he/she does carefully". Watch the people in a video
>camera, and you'll find that the one who gets a smoldering mess DIDN'T
>follow the recipe; they THOUGHT they did, but they mixed something up.
>This doesn't mean that chemistry is not reliable; it means that PEOPLE
>are unreliable.
I disagree with your idea of 'talent'. IMO, that sounds simply like someone
who has learned to paint by copying works of art in galleries and the like,
exactly. Paying attention to each individual brush-stroke to make sure he has
it all perfectly as it is in the original. This kind of artistry, IMO, is not
really artistry. Merely an ability to copy well. If asked to do an original
work of his own, chances are it would not be very good!
'Talent' as I have always observed it is an almost unconscious thing that
most people who have it, don't really understand themselves. A friend of mine
has the annoying ability to hear a tune, and although he has never had any
musical training whatsoever, go to a keyboard and plunk out what he just heard
in just a few seconds, maybe a minute or two. He doesn't know how he does it,
it just comes to him when it sounds right.
Now! My opinions on talent in magical systems. (Yeah, I know you didn't ask,
but, when did that ever stop a single person on the Usenet?? ;)
I think I can draw a psudo-mathematical analogy to programming. A class is
given a problem to solve by coding a program. Now, everybody has the
same problem, but, I would be willing to put money on the fact that, (assuming
the answer wasn't in the back of the book, and they all didn't copy from each
other), each student's code is going to be different. They all solve the same
problem, but how they got there is not the same for any of them, and, more
importantly than that - for some the answer was simple for them to
conceptualize in terms of code on a computer, they wrote the code, and then
went back to see if they could make it more compact. But for other students
the problem was something they could understand in human terms, but in
converting the human terms into lines of code, their minds balked, and it took
quite a bit of book-work and looking things up for them to finally understand
how to get the answer they were looking for. The first one had an intrinsic
talent for coding, and structured thinking. The second understood the
problem, but didn't have that subconscious reservoir of talent to draw on so
it took him longer to get the same result, and he prolly failed many more
times in his efforts to get it right. Moreover, the second student once
sucessful would be very unlikely to go back and perfect his code to make it
smaller, or more efficient unless made to do it in another assignment.
Well, that was longer than I had anticipated, but, I think it illustrates my
points...If I'm wrong, I'm certain someone will tell me. ;)
> It's been done several times. The "no identical snowflake" thing is an
>urban myth. There are a LOT of different snowflake shapes, yes, but you
>can find ones that are identical down to just about any level you care
>to name, as long as you're willing to accept differences of impurities.
>I've actually seen two identical snowflakes; unfortunately, preserving
>them wasn't possible.
*chuckle* I won't argue the point about the snowflake, because I know it to
be completely true. However, I also wouldn't argue that in a society with my
'artistic' style magic-users you're gonna find two of them who execute their
spells pretty much identically. Most likely you'll find quite alot of them
who do this in fact, as the 'steps' to get one in the correct frame of mind
to, say, hurl a fireball, are gonna be much the same for many people. So, the
snowflake arguement still holds. Even in a system where magic can be
individual to the person, there are still gonna be plenty of identical
snowflakes out there if you look for them.
> But again, there it's not the MAGIC that's unreliable, it's the person.
Yup, to this I agree. But, to anyone who isn't a magic-user, what difference
does it make if the _magic_ is to blame, or the _magic-user_? To the rest of
the troupe the spell to save their lives didn't go off, and now they're in
deep doo-doo! And who's to say the magic didn't fail the user, instead of the
user failing the party??
>If the person did the right thing the right way, it should work the same
>way every time. And, in fact, if it wasn't actually EFFECTIVELY pretty
>reliable, no one would use it. You couldn't teach it effectively or
>safely, and it wouldn't be very useful. After all, if you can't be sure
>if you're going to get a fireball or a summoned elephant today, what's
>the point?
Now, this is where I disagree. Magic, theoretically, could be influenced by
lots of things -- moon phase, sun cycle, time of day, alignment of the stars,
etc... Perhaps these influences aren't even known to the mages, but they make
a difference in their practicing of magic. These aspects could account for
the occasional failure of a mage's spell, even when he swore he was successful
in his efforts!
And, as to what's the point of using magic if it's not 100% reliable??
Simple. When it does work, it's very powerful, but the price you pay is
unreliability sometimes. Everything has a price (and especially so in RPG's!
If nigh unlimited power came with no pricetag, then what would the point of
*not* being a magician be??)
Well, that was long...Please reply if you think I'm full of hot air, but I
think my reasoning and assessment is sound. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Fatally,
Phlod
Thomas Robinson
IMHO...A mix of predictability and randomness would best describe the
use of MAGIC in a fantasy setting. Low power/difficulty castings
could be made nearly automatically. While high power/difficulty
castings would be more prone to fizzle or produce random effects.
I would think that those random effects would be in-line with the
overall effect attempted. By way of example, a fizzled fireball my
appear normal but only produce 1 point per die of damage, while a
random effect fireball could generate normal heating/burning effects
but be completely invisible. < Hummm.. Come to think of it, that
sounds pretty scarey>. The reliability/predictability of magic should
be proportional to the users skill with it, with variability depending
on conditions.
Sea Wasp
Here's the crux. HOW "unreliable" are we talking here? If we're dealing
with something that ISN'T, as its essence, predictable, then screwups
will be relatively common, unpredictable with regards to their force or
extremity, and relatively unaffected by practice. In this case, no
person of even vaguely sane mind would use it, and even fewer would
associate with the few loonies who did. Moreover, they'd die young; the
inevitable Bad Screwup would catch up with them VERY fast, and they'd be
unlikely to be able to get lots of good use out of it, because they'd
never be sure if they could get anything they wanted out of it.
Now, if it's MOSTLY reliable, that's an entirely different kettle of
fish. Singing is an artform, but one governed by very reliable physical
rules, and one that can be mastered with practice. If casting spells
were like singing songs, okay. That's within the bounds of reasonable
screwups -- if you're well trained, you can reliably do things that are
well within your range of skill, and you might even get away with
stretching your limits once in a while. Screwups will tend to be small
UNLESS you're pushing your limits when you make your oopsie. And you'll
be reasonably sure of getting the results you wanted. In THAT case, then
magic is an occasionally difficult to use, but controllable and useful,
force that can be taught (in the first case, you can't teach it -- even
someone using it for a thousand years is just as likely as a novice to
get a Furball when he wanted a Fireball, so there's no "control" to
teach anyone) and that can be reasonably certain to produce the kind of
results that you want.
When people talk about "unreliable" magic, they're usually introducing
a variant of #1, by introducing a botch mechanic that applies to ALL
spellcastings, and that could theoretically cause the mage to vaporize
while casting a cantrip. That's unacceptable in my view, even if the
percentage is relatively small... because over a reasonable lifetime
those percentages WILL catch up with you, quite soon.
If you're talking about my second version, then you have reliable magic
limited by the skill and ability of the user, which is perfectly
acceptable. That's like playing football; a quarterback, given time and
lack of pressure, can be pretty sure of throwing the ball where he wants
it virtually all of the time, and even if he misses he'll be CLOSE. Even
under pressure he can often get the right, or near-right, result. Only
in unusual circumstances does he really screw up the actual "casting" of
his "spell" and throw the ball utterly the wrong direction, fumble it,
etc. Or like singing; if you warm up carefully, you know if your voice
is "off" today and know either not to sing, or to sing very
conservatively; if your voice is "on", you know that, barring very
unusual circumstances, you'll sing the notes you want when you want to.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Phlod
>
> Here's the crux. HOW "unreliable" are we talking here? If we're dealing
>
>with something that ISN'T, as its essence, predictable, then screwups
>will be relatively common, unpredictable with regards to their force or
>extremity, and relatively unaffected by practice. In this case, no
>person of even vaguely sane mind would use it, and even fewer would
>associate with the few loonies who did. Moreover, they'd die young; the
>inevitable Bad Screwup would catch up with them VERY fast, and they'd be
>unlikely to be able to get lots of good use out of it, because they'd
>never be sure if they could get anything they wanted out of it.
[Snippity Snippity Snip]
> When people talk about "unreliable" magic, they're usually introducing
>a variant of #1, by introducing a botch mechanic that applies to ALL
>spellcastings, and that could theoretically cause the mage to vaporize
>while casting a cantrip. That's unacceptable in my view, even if the
>percentage is relatively small... because over a reasonable lifetime
>those percentages WILL catch up with you, quite soon.
*chuckle* The only intrinsic metaphysical flaw I see with this example, is
that if magic was *that* unpredicatble, then there's a really good chance of
*anyone* casting a spell to nuke themselves just by accidentally wiggling in
the right way, even though they didn't know they were gonna even cast a spell!
Or in fact, had no experience with magic at all.
You're right though, I've always thought that simple magics in a game should
not have to be rolled for. For a mage to turn a page in a book without
touching it should *not* be a potentially life-threatening procedure. Heck,
he shouldn't even ever fail, IMO, unless he's trying to turn a page with his
mind while being chased by a torch and axe-wielding mob! ;) However, the
game mechanics are oftem much more difficult. For example, what is a 'simple
magic'?? Obviously turning a page in a book, lighting a candle, etc... But,
how much harder is summoning a chunk of iron? A sword? I had a player wreak
ravok on an Ars Magica game I was running once and all he used was the most
simplest of 10th or 15th level spell. He dropped iron blocks on all the bad
guys I had attacking the party. It was effective, but hardly what I thought
was becoming of a mage.
Now, the point of all this rambling is, the main thing that keeps magic in
check in RPG's is the 'oops factor', that intrinsic that says, 'If you mess
this up, you could be in DEEP doo-doo!' But, as a GM, I would never make my
PC's roll for every single little uncontested bit of energy-slinging they want
to do. That is boring for one, and unneccissary for two.
Fatally,
Phlod
Nis Haller Baggesen
I don't want magic to be a science in my games, so personally I prefer
unreliable magic. But more importantly, I often let my magic depend on
the intentions of the caster. If the caster wants to immolate some
enemy, he migth make a fireball to do it. But since his intention was
not to set the whole building ablaze, but merely to kill somebody that
is the onely affect the fireball produces. For this reason I also
normally avoid spell systems, but if somebody was to learn a fireball in
a magic system with this reasoning, he would learn a spell that immolate
people, and nothing else. If the spell is cast correctly that is.
Nis.
Thomas Lindgren
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
> Here's the crux. HOW "unreliable" are we talking here? If we're
> dealing with something that ISN'T, as its essence, predictable,
> then screwups will be relatively common, unpredictable with regards to
> their force or extremity, and relatively unaffected by practice. In
> this case, no person of even vaguely sane mind would use it, and even
> fewer would associate with the few loonies who did. Moreover, they'd
> die young; the inevitable Bad Screwup would catch up with them VERY
> fast, and they'd be unlikely to be able to get lots of good use out
> of it, because they'd never be sure if they could get anything they
> wanted out of it.
A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
Instead of throwing fireballs and so on and so forth, magi would
direct their elementals, spirits, demons, familiars, sandestins
and/or other creatures to do their bidding. In exchange for things
or acts, the magus could be invested with some power. (Not all
deals need to be 'in exchange for your mortal soul'; you might
swear yourself to the betterment of Good in exchange for esoteric
powers, or undertake a quest in exchange for Modron knowledge, or
simply learn the tricks required to bind elementals, etc etc.)
As to dying young: if each spell, or each deal, grants you
sufficient power, the law of averages might never catch up. It's
just a question of stopping in time. (A 'deal-based' view might
be that a botched deal leaves you with obligations but little
gain, rather than your annihilation or permanent enslavement.
It all depends on who you are dealing with, of course.)
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University
e-mail: tho...@csd.uu.se
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/
Nis Haller Baggesen
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
> with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
> (In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
I tried this idea myself, and I like it a lot. But I thought what was
being discussed here was the nature of magic itself, not of the people
who weilded it. After all, in this scenario the demons etc. who could
provide the magic would still have full control over it.
Sea Wasp
Phlod wrote:
> Now, the point of all this rambling is, the main thing that keeps magic in
> check in RPG's is the 'oops factor', that intrinsic that says, 'If you mess
> this up, you could be in DEEP doo-doo!'
What? I've been running games for 20 years without needing such a
mechanic. What usually keeps magic in check is that you can only sling
so much of it before you're tapped. And that bigger things exist out
there than you, and if you piss them off enough they'll come and sit on
you.
I've actually run games with five or six game mechanics in place
(because each player preferred a different system -- so I let them use
their preferred system), and no one of them was really dominant. My most
recent campaign used a cast-strain system, but for simple tricks I
didn't have him roll. As to what's "simple", that depends on how magic
works in your world. Since I know how magic works in mine, it's a simple
call, pardon the pun.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Brett Evill
In article <3mzpmnl...@harpo.csd.uu.se>, Thomas Lindgren
<tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se> wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>> Here's the crux. HOW "unreliable" are we talking here? If we're
>> dealing with something that ISN'T, as its essence, predictable,
>> then screwups will be relatively common, unpredictable with regards to
>> their force or extremity, and relatively unaffected by practice. In
>> this case, no person of even vaguely sane mind would use it, and even
>> fewer would associate with the few loonies who did. Moreover, they'd
>> die young; the inevitable Bad Screwup would catch up with them VERY
>> fast, and they'd be unlikely to be able to get lots of good use out
>> of it, because they'd never be sure if they could get anything they
>> wanted out of it.
>
>A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
>with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
>(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
This is consistent with Jack Vance's 'sandestin magic' of course, but
according to Sir James Frazer's famous classification in 'The Golden
Bough', working effects by negotiation with supernatural beings is
religion. Attempting to work effects directly employing supposed laws of
nature such as the laws of similarity and contagion is magic.
You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
--
Brett Evill
To reply, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Sea Wasp
Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
> > Here's the crux. HOW "unreliable" are we talking here? If we're
> > dealing with something that ISN'T, as its essence, predictable,
> > then screwups will be relatively common, unpredictable with regards to
> > their force or extremity, and relatively unaffected by practice. In
> > this case, no person of even vaguely sane mind would use it, and even
> > fewer would associate with the few loonies who did. Moreover, they'd
> > die young; the inevitable Bad Screwup would catch up with them VERY
> > fast, and they'd be unlikely to be able to get lots of good use out
> > of it, because they'd never be sure if they could get anything they
> > wanted out of it.
>
> A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
> with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
> (In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
That's not an unreliable system of magic. That's a perfectly reliable
system of magic using dangerous intermediaries. In essence, you're
taking away the mage's ability to actually USE magic, except in a very
limited sense for summoning/bargaining purposes, and giving all magical
prowess -- RELIABLE magical prowess, in all the "bargain" based systems
I've ever heard of -- to the other creatures. A fire elemental doesn't
have to roll to make fire. He KNOWS he can do it. He has no uncertainty
at all, and it works every time, barring a directly interfering power.
> As to dying young: if each spell, or each deal, grants you
> sufficient power, the law of averages might never catch up. It's
> just a question of stopping in time.
To some extent, yes. But if you have to cast a fairly large number of
spells to get to "retirement" level of power -- say something even
VAGUELY close to what the average adventuring magician has to use in
virtually all games I've ever seen -- the law of averages WILL catch you
and hit you with a sledgehammer, probably more than once. The AD&D words
"Wild Mage" come to mind. Except that THAT would be a NORMAL mage.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Ian Absentia
Brett Evill refutes Thomas Lindgren's statement...
> >A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
> >with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
> >(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
...by stating...
> You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
> magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
Actually, Brett, a fairly quick survey of historical magical texts
from across the globe will suggest that Thomas is quite correct. For the
most part, magic *has* been viewed as possible only by traffic with "the
powers that be" in order to be effective. The notion that magical power
originates from within the human caster has been, in my reading, a
relatively recent development, and one that occurs mostly within the
confines of fantasy novels.
Personally, I'd like to see a game developed that treats modern-day
magic as the result of conjuring and abjuring beings from other spheres of
power. Just a thought.
Gone,
Ian Absentia
--
(Please note: For personal replies, remove all capital "X" from my reply
address.)
AARON JAMES EDWARD PEORI
Ian Absentia (Xidy...@XseanetX.com) wrote:
: Brett Evill refutes Thomas Lindgren's statement...
: > >A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
: > >with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
: > >(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
: ...by stating...
: > You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
: > magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
: Actually, Brett, a fairly quick survey of historical magical texts
: from across the globe will suggest that Thomas is quite correct.
It -would-? I must have been reading some really weird magical texts
then. Many of the things I've seen about oriental mysticism, hermetic
magic and other forms of magecraft have had nothing to do with a
-sentient- "power that is". This would be like saying that physics is
actually just a complex way of praying to some diety.
: For the
: most part, magic *has* been viewed as possible only by traffic with "the
: powers that be" in order to be effective. The notion that magical power
: originates from within the human caster has been, in my reading, a
: relatively recent development, and one that occurs mostly within the
: confines of fantasy novels.
True in that the concept of it being the -source- of magic is ussually
fairly new (unless you count chinese belief in "chi" as magic...).
However the wizards of many old legends were controlling natural forces,
not bargaining with sentient magical entities.
I prefer to refer to magic which is the result of bargaining with
extra-dimensional beings as "sorcery" instead of magic.
: Personally, I'd like to see a game developed that treats modern-day
: magic as the result of conjuring and abjuring beings from other spheres of
: power. Just a thought.
I believe there are a few out there actually. At least one exists on the
'net.
--
-----------------
Epsilon
" Pain without Sorrow;
Want without Desire;
Purpose without Passion,
That burns like Fire."
- Sensation
Thomas Lindgren
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> > A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
> > with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
> > (In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
>
I'd say it is unreliable in the same sense that social sciences
are unreliable when compared to physics. But your mileage may vary.
(I think of Jack Vance's "Rhialto the Marvellous" when the topic
of unreliable supernatural servants comes up :-)
> > As to dying young: if each spell, or each deal, grants you
> > sufficient power, the law of averages might never catch up. It's
> > just a question of stopping in time.
>
> To some extent, yes. But if you have to cast a fairly large number of
> spells to get to "retirement" level of power -- say something even
> VAGUELY close to what the average adventuring magician has to use in
> virtually all games I've ever seen -- the law of averages WILL catch you
> and hit you with a sledgehammer, probably more than once. The AD&D words
> "Wild Mage" come to mind. Except that THAT would be a NORMAL mage.
Indeed. I wholly agree with you as long as it's the case that
mages have to cast a lot of unreliable spells. If each spell has
a low gain if you succeed and a high cost if you fail,
and the probability of failing is high, then you have to be a poor
gambler to take the bet.
Thomas Lindgren
Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.aau.dk> writes:
> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>
> > A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
> > with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
> > (In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
>
> I tried this idea myself, and I like it a lot. But I thought what was
> being discussed here was the nature of magic itself, not of the people
> who weilded it. After all, in this scenario the demons etc. who could
> provide the magic would still have full control over it.
Another view would be that the forces of nature themselves are
embodied and conscious and must be compelled, convinced, cajoled
or coerced in order to work magic. It evades the usual
view of the world as a Great Machine, of course.
Thomas Lindgren
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) writes:
>>A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
>>with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
>>(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
/.../
> You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
> magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that summoning is the whole of the
paradigm of real-world magic, but that there is a real-world
traditional streak of it that can be fruitfully used for ideas when
designing magic systems. Is that more acceptable to you?
Pierre Wargwier
Hej,
I have created a magic system for LARP were magic is not reliable. If
magic is very risky, there should be compemsations, otherwise the
peoples should not use it. For my system magic was like an art (as
singing and the like) but also like cooking: You can add or substract
things, build another spell on the template on anothr one etc... so it's
very flexible and the mage has a lot of choises even if he has not one
component he can change it by another.
So here magic is available foe everybody who want to practice it a bit,
Magic is powerful,
Magic is flexible
BUT IT's RISKY!! (so the poeples don't like it , or don't believe in it,
and there is few mages)
Pierre
Thomas Lindgren
ape...@ug.cs.dal.ca (AARON JAMES EDWARD PEORI) writes:
> This would be like saying that physics is
> actually just a complex way of praying to some diety.
And _that_ was just about what I wanted to suggest. (With the
exception that 'praying' is just one way of getting what you want.)
It makes for a quite different paradigm of magic and magic-working.
(I take 'magic' to be the bringing about of supernatural events.)
> I prefer to refer to magic which is the result of bargaining with
> extra-dimensional beings as "sorcery" instead of magic.
At this point, since several posters have taken me to task for
suggesting such a thing, I'd like to say that my intent is not to revise the
entire magical corpus of thought, but to suggest an interesting
paradigm for _unreliable_magic_. Anyone that feels that viewing magic
this way is deeply wrong and simply not done in decent families is
_of_course_ free to discard the concept, or to relegate it to
a sub-branch of their magic system.
woodelf
In article <5ie8vm$5...@web3.tcd.ie>, rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) wrote:
> A "belief directly determines reality" world like that mentioned above
> isn't logically consistent, for a number of reasons. (For one thing, if
> the world came about because we believe in it, where did we come from?
> The normal answer, evolution, obviously can't apply. For another, such
> a world would be wildly unstable and quickly destroyed by positive
> feedback effects. These are related to properties of complex systems in
> general, not specific to the case in point.)
>
well, i've never seen sucha world proposed for a serious RPG setting. in
Mage, it's "belief defines reality," which is significantly different.
reality exists with or without belief, but how we interpret it is stronger
than just an interpretation: it has some alterational power. so, yes, we
can evolve, just like any other animal, or be created by divine
intervention, or formed as a side affect of two great powers struggling,
or whatever. i'd say that it is possible for the system to work, because
people don't generally agree with one another. until the advent of mass
communication, not enough of the world would have believed in any one
cosmology for it to have had much of an effect (frex, several N African
cultures knew the earth was round 3-4 millenia ago (or more), and many
more cultures simply believed it to be). even today, there is rather a
bit of disagreement on things like science vs. religion, and whether
science is fundamentally rested on belief or fact, and which religion is
right, and which people deserve what land, and so on. IOW, if the impact
of the beliefs of a small percentage or the populace was zero, rather than
proportional to the percentage, and an effect only began to be manifest
when a significant percent of the population believed it, there would be
far fewer changes.
woodelf
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
woo...@yar.cs.wisc.edu
http://dax.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
The Universe is governed by the complex interweaving of three things:
matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest. --G'Kar
Alex Williams
[Alex launches into the obvious counterargument to any subjective
reality postulate outside Tekumel ...]
In article <nbarmore-301...@purple.cs.wisc.edu>,
woodelf <nbar...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> right, and which people deserve what land, and so on. IOW, if the impact
> of the beliefs of a small percentage or the populace was zero, rather than
> proportional to the percentage, and an effect only began to be manifest
> when a significant percent of the population believed it, there would be
> far fewer changes.
... and we'd all be Chinese, and the development of the Western mode
of thought would have never occured ...
Unless you're also postulating some 'favoured frame of reference' to
Western modern thought. While Europe was a land of barbarians, the
Maya, Aztecs and other pre-Columbian civilizations flourished.
--
--
[ Alexander Williams {tha...@alf.dec.com/zan...@photobooks.com} ]
[ Alexandrvs Vrai, Prefect 8,000,000th Experimental Strike Legion ]
[ BELLATORES INQVIETI --- Restless Warriors ]
Ed Reppert
In article <01bcfd5c$1b54eba0$2581...@idyoung.atlantica.net>, "Ian
Absentia" <Xidy...@XseanetX.com> wrote:
> Actually, Brett, a fairly quick survey of historical magical texts
> from across the globe will suggest that Thomas is quite correct. For the
> most part, magic *has* been viewed as possible only by traffic with "the
> powers that be" in order to be effective. The notion that magical power
> originates from within the human caster has been, in my reading, a
> relatively recent development, and one that occurs mostly within the
> confines of fantasy novels.
> Personally, I'd like to see a game developed that treats modern-day
> magic as the result of conjuring and abjuring beings from other spheres of
> power. Just a thought.
>
Well, I'm no expert, but I don't think that's entirely true. Certainly some
aspects of magic are directly related to the existence of supernatural
beings, but not all. See, for example, Richard Cavendish's _A History of
Magic_ (ISBN 0-8008-3887-4). For a modern treatment, there's Isaac
Bonewits' _Real Magic_ (ISBN 0-87728-688-4) and the companion _Authentic
Thaumaturgy_, currently out of print, but reputedly soon to be reprinted,
which applies the principles discussed in Bonewits' earlier book to a FRPG
magic system.
In Chivalry & Sorcery, the Spells of Summoning would seem to be just what
you're looking for. Of course, there are other aspects to that system that
_don't_ involve otherworldly beings.
--
Regards,
Ed
mailto:erep...@syndicomm.com mailto:blac...@delphi.com
Barry Gold
In article <65n532$i...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
Thomas Robinson <tr77...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>IMHO...A mix of predictability and randomness would best describe the
>use of MAGIC in a fantasy setting.
Note that Predictability has two manifestations:
a) Predictability from the GM's point of view, with the GM
assumed to know everything except what the PCs are going to do.
b) Predictability from the PC's point of view, with the player
assumed to be considerably more in the dark.
Depending on how much of the Rules of Magic (and NPC actions)
are hidden from the players/PCs, randomness may be fairly
unnecessary in order to keep Magic somewhat mysterious.
Reductum ad absurdum: I once handed out a magic artifact back
in Original D&D days, with the description of how it worked
in an envelope -- to be handed to the GM by the player (for this was
back in the days that PCs moved freely from one dungeon to another).
As I recall it worked like this:
If held by a Lawful:
the crystal turned blue if there was an innocent victim needing
help within 1000' feet -- with the blue getting brighter as one
got nearer
the crystal got a black dot if there was an Evil person within 1000
with the dot getting bigger the nearer one got
the crystal got a gold dot if there was a treasure of 10,000 GP
or more within 1000' feet -- with the dot getting bigger
the nearer one got.
If held by a Neutral, the same three colors showed up but
with different meanings. And of course the same if held
by a Chaotic.
GMs (I'm told) would open the envelope, giggle, and describe
the the crystal's appearance as people waved it about
or passed it from one person to another. Several years
later, the PCs sold it to the Magic Shop, having never
managed to find anyone who could figure it out.
--Lee Gold
Brett Evill
In article <01bcfd5c$1b54eba0$2581...@idyoung.atlantica.net>, "Ian
Absentia" <Xidy...@XseanetX.com> wrote:
>Brett Evill refutes Thomas Lindgren's statement...
>
>> >A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
>> >with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
>> >(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
>
>...by stating...
>
>> You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
>> magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
>
> Actually, Brett, a fairly quick survey of historical magical texts
>from across the globe will suggest that Thomas is quite correct.
But that vast majority of people who believed and believed in magic were
pre-literate, and have left no texts. Therefore the sample you suggest is
biased. Further, a great many magical practices were folk customs, not the
province of the tiny minority of European academic magicians.
Sir James Frazer, in his monumental 'The Golden Bough', examined the
distinction between 'magic' and 'religion', making the distinction that
religion implored the intercession of supernatural agencies, while magic
attempted to operated directly and mechanistically. He cited copious
examples of each. So the existence of a belief in magic as a technology is
certainly well-attested.
Brett Evill
In article <3mvhxal...@harpo.csd.uu.se>, Thomas Lindgren
<tho...@harpo.csd.uu.se> wrote:
>b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) writes:
>>>A reasonable system for unreliable magic might be to base it on dealing
>>>with powerful creatures, much as real-world magic claimed to do.
>>>(In real life, they were, of course, regarded as dangerous loons.)
>/.../
>> You are overstating your case, I believe, to suggest that all real-world
>> magic claimed to work its effects by dealings with powerful creatures.
>
>Well, I didn't mean to imply that summoning is the whole of the
>paradigm of real-world magic, but that there is a real-world
>traditional streak of it that can be fruitfully used for ideas when
>designing magic systems. Is that more acceptable to you?
Certainly. Anything that is god enough for Jack Vance is good enough for me.
Brett Evill
In article <65sn7r$37s$1...@netnews.alf.dec.com>,
tha...@zeorymer.alf.dec.com (Alex Williams) wrote:
>Unless you're also postulating some 'favoured frame of reference' to
>Western modern thought. While Europe was a land of barbarians, the
>Maya, Aztecs and other pre-Columbian civilizations flourished.
Not quite. The Maya were roughly contemporaneous with ancient Rome: if
anything, a little later. The Aztecs did not even settle down from a
wandering life until the 12th century CE, and did not found Tenochtitlan
until about 1345 CE.
You could certainly make a case that the Maya predated the present
European civilisation, which has only the flimsiest roots in Rome and
Greece. But claiming that Europe was uncivilised while the Aztecs were
flourishing is painting it on a bit thick.
Brett Evill
In article <348187...@itek.chalmers.se>, Pierre Wargwier
<mot9...@itek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>Hej,
>
> I have created a magic system for LARP were magic is not reliable. If
>magic is very risky, there should be compemsations, otherwise the
>peoples should not use it. For my system magic was like an art (as
>singing and the like) but also like cooking: You can add or substract
>things, build another spell on the template on anothr one etc... so it's
>very flexible and the mage has a lot of choises even if he has not one
>component he can change it by another.
This sounds not unlike the magic system in 'HindSight, by Tonio Loewald.
Bruce Baugh
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>Sir James Frazer, in his monumental 'The Golden Bough', examined the
Not just monumental, but monumentally idiosyncratic. It would, I think, be
very unwise to take Frazer as the authority without the specific awareness
that by doing so you're moving well outside the realm of what archeology,
anthropology, or sociology would justify. Frazer speculated, imagined,
filled in gaps - the resulting work is as much about his own head as about
the objects of study.
--
Bruce Baugh <*>
ari...@eyrie.org <*>
Michael Barlow
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>,
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> In article <348187...@itek.chalmers.se>, Pierre Wargwier
> <mot9...@itek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
> >Hej,
> >
> > I have created a magic system for LARP were magic is not reliable. If
> >magic is very risky, there should be compemsations, otherwise the
> >peoples should not use it. For my system magic was like an art (as
> >singing and the like) but also like cooking: You can add or substract
> >things, build another spell on the template on anothr one etc... so it's
> >very flexible and the mage has a lot of choises even if he has not one
> >component he can change it by another.
>
> This sounds not unlike the magic system in 'HindSight, by Tonio Loewald.
Also sounds a bit like my magic system that uses Tarot cards to represent
fundamental magical building blocks. Combine the cards to get the type
of spell you want. More cards equals more powerful. There's a general
(systemless) write-up of it hanging off my roleplaying page as well as
how it works in my FUDGE fantasy world:
http://www.cs.adfa.oz.au/~spike/Roleplay/
Spike
Bun Bu RyoDo
--
Dr. Michael Barlow sp...@cs.adfa.oz.au
Lecturer http://www.cs.adfa.oz.au/~spike
School of Computer Science University of NSW/ADFA
Canberra, ACT Australia
Brett Evill
In article <65t9dk$2rs...@kenosis.eyrie.tpc>, bruce...@sff.net (Bruce
Baugh) wrote:
>In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>,
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>
>>Sir James Frazer, in his monumental 'The Golden Bough', examined the
>
>Not just monumental, but monumentally idiosyncratic. It would, I think, be
>very unwise to take Frazer as the authority without the specific awareness
>that by doing so you're moving well outside the realm of what archeology,
>anthropology, or sociology would justify. Frazer speculated, imagined,
>filled in gaps - the resulting work is as much about his own head as about
>the objects of study.
So much is certainly true of his conclusions. However, 'The Golden Bough'
contains copious citations of primary evidence, and it is clear from this
that many rituals and folk practices are based on the principles of
sympathetic magic and are not believed by their practitioners to involve
the invocation of second parties, including supernatural beings.
Frazer was certainly imaginative in his reconstructions, and more
evocative in his writing than is acceptable now. He was doubtless
selective in his choice of illustrative cases. But no-one has accused him
of lying about the evidence.
Bruce Baugh
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>Frazer was certainly imaginative in his reconstructions, and more
>evocative in his writing than is acceptable now. He was doubtless
>selective in his choice of illustrative cases. But no-one has accused him
>of lying about the evidence.
Lying, no. Inventing, yes. Selectivity in presentation, yes.
Look, I like Frazer's work a whole lot, and would feel very comfortable
using it as a framework for a treatment of historical fantasy. But it's
really not reality.
Alex Williams
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>,
Brett Evill <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au> wrote:
>You could certainly make a case that the Maya predated the present
>European civilisation, which has only the flimsiest roots in Rome and
>Greece. But claiming that Europe was uncivilised while the Aztecs were
>flourishing is painting it on a bit thick.
Accepted, and even given so, the problem is only multiplied. We now
have multiple powerful, multi-personage views of reality
co-temporally, and the modern Western paradigm nowhere amongst them.
There either has to be a higher, implicate order in the way belief
affects reality in a subjective sense, giving rise to major changes in
subjective realities (which, then, really /is/ reality and invariant),
or the idea of subjective reality doesn't function at anywhere near
even the national level ... in which case, again, there is no
subjective reality.
David G. Bell
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au "Brett Evill" writes:
> In article <65t9dk$2rs...@kenosis.eyrie.tpc>, bruce...@sff.net (Bruce
> Baugh) wrote:
>
> >In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>,
> b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> >
> >>Sir James Frazer, in his monumental 'The Golden Bough', examined the
> >
> >Not just monumental, but monumentally idiosyncratic. It would, I think, be
> >very unwise to take Frazer as the authority without the specific awareness
> >that by doing so you're moving well outside the realm of what archeology,
> >anthropology, or sociology would justify. Frazer speculated, imagined,
> >filled in gaps - the resulting work is as much about his own head as about
> >the objects of study.
>
> So much is certainly true of his conclusions. However, 'The Golden Bough'
> contains copious citations of primary evidence, and it is clear from this
> that many rituals and folk practices are based on the principles of
> sympathetic magic and are not believed by their practitioners to involve
> the invocation of second parties, including supernatural beings.
>
> Frazer was certainly imaginative in his reconstructions, and more
> evocative in his writing than is acceptable now. He was doubtless
> selective in his choice of illustrative cases. But no-one has accused him
> of lying about the evidence.
I have a recent single-volume printing. lacking the citations. It's a
fascinating read.
It has been suggested, and it seems very plausible, that Frazer was
deliberately criticising Christianity, with his comments of the effects
of Mystery Religions coming out of the East.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Brett Evill
In article <65tr1v$234...@kenosis.eyrie.tpc>, bruce...@sff.net (Bruce
Baugh) wrote:
>In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>,
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>
>>Frazer was certainly imaginative in his reconstructions, and more
>>evocative in his writing than is acceptable now. He was doubtless
>>selective in his choice of illustrative cases. But no-one has accused him
>>of lying about the evidence.
>
>Lying, no. Inventing, yes. Selectivity in presentation, yes.
>
>Look, I like Frazer's work a whole lot, and would feel very comfortable
>using it as a framework for a treatment of historical fantasy. But it's
>really not reality.
I am not trying to establish his theories about kingship, gods of
vegetation, sacred marriage, and human sacrifice, nor his reconstruction
of the society of pre-republican Rome as a matrilocal patriarchy. (Though,
as it happens, I have based a fantasy society on the concept.)
All I am doing is pointing out that there is a great deal of evidence for
magical practices that do not suppose delegation, placation or persuasion
of, nor negotiations or dealings with, supernatural beings, and that some
of this evidence may be conveniently found in 'The Golden Bough'.
If you wish to argue that in fact all or nearly all magic in the real
world has been believed by its practitioners to work though the agency of
supernatural beings, please do so without ad hominem attacks on Frazer.
Psychohist
Thomas Lindgren posts about magic that is unreliable because of dependence on
supernatural entities.
I use this as one of several forms of magic, but it hasn't been fully defined
yet. I'd be interested in peoples' opinions on just how unreliable such magic
should be.
I could see a rather broad spectrum or unreliability here. At one extreme,
agreements with supernatural creatures might be truly binding, and the
unreliability could be solely from ambiguities in the phrasing of agreements.
At the other extreme, the supernatural entities might be free to ignore
agreements, protective circles, and what have you, in which case magic would
only work when these entities felt like humoring the humans.
In between, you'd have cases where agreements were nonbinding but magicians
could punish the supernatural entities, or where agreements were binding only
in the sense that the human legal system is binding, perhaps being enforced by
more powerful supernatural entities for thier own reasons.
Which of these would make for the best game play? Which is the most consistent
with historical 'magic'?
Warren Dew
Bruce Baugh
In article <b.evill-0212...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>Certainly. The theory of subjective reality cannot explain even the
>paradigm shifts within our present Western culture, let alone the
>succession of cultures in western Europe. And presented with spatial
Just so. The theory -does- work, albeit in cosmological terms I find very
unappealing, if you assume that there are privileged observers. Some
handful of people have the (generally unconscious) power to reshape
reality. In Mage these would include the PCs. Then it turns into dueling
elites, sort of a reified version of leftist historiography. :)
Bruce Baugh
In article <6601bl$1vk...@kenosis.eyrie.tpc>, bruce...@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>reality. In Mage these would include the PCs. Then it turns into dueling
>elites, sort of a reified version of leftist historiography. :)
In the spirit of fair play, I must note that dueling elites suitable for
use as the inspiration for rival reality-shaping camps can be found in
other flavors of historiography, too. Lots of them.
Eric Tolle
bruce...@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>In article <b.evill-0212...@tynslip1.apana.org.au>, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>Just so. The theory -does- work, albeit in cosmological terms I find very
>unappealing, if you assume that there are privileged observers. Some
>handful of people have the (generally unconscious) power to reshape
>reality. In Mage these would include the PCs. Then it turns into dueling
Oddly enough, this is also one of the basic premises of Feng Shui.
The methods and atmospehere are differnet, but the effect is the same.
Eric Tolle unde...@silcom.com
"An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the
terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's
crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Luke Silburn
classics of the early anthropological literature, describes an
"unreliable" magical system based upon a natural cosmology (ie. magical
powers aren't supplied by spirits or deities).
Its well written and a short monograph. Based upon fieldwork done in the
interwar period.
Luke
--
Silb...@fate.logica.com
Suggestions for a witty .sig gratefully received
------------------------------------------------
Counter-spam: UBE doesn't have to be inevitable.
Take fate into your own hands to send me email.
Barry Gold
In addition to the many folktales of theurgic magic
(cast using invocation of various religious powers),
there are also many folktales of magic based on
a) contact with elves, fairies, and other nonhumans
who teach special arts (e.g. music), which don't seem
to _me_ to have any religious overtones in the mage's
apprenticeship or later mastery
b) craft magic (much like the above)
using an artistic craft, either a fine art (e.g.
music, poetry) or practical art (e.g. weaving,
forging), This includes stories of artists who
paint pictures which occasionally wander off and
get into trouble, standard in many cultures as praise
for the artist's realistic work.
Also check the Brothers Grimm marchen for people with *odd*
talents (always cold -- never burned by fire, too stupid
to be scared by anything, seven league boots) with
again no religious overtones I can see. Like the Xanthians,
these people have ONE talent per person. They aren't
spellcasters but what they do should be considered magic --
and it's very reliable.
--Lee Gold
Bruce Baugh
>Oddly enough, this is also one of the basic premises of Feng Shui.
>The methods and atmospehere are differnet, but the effect is the same.
Well, sorta. In Feng Shui anyone can pass through the Netherworld and start
tinkering with history - the elite is selected by experience rather than
genetics, the choice of the goods, or whatever.
Tim Toner
Alex Williams wrote in message <65up0i$qlf$1...@netnews.alf.dec.com>...
>There either has to be a higher, implicate order in the way belief
>affects reality in a subjective sense, giving rise to major changes in
>subjective realities (which, then, really /is/ reality and invariant),
>or the idea of subjective reality doesn't function at anywhere near
>even the national level ... in which case, again, there is no
>subjective reality.
Or perhaps all societies that do not conform to a given aesthetic sow within
themselves the seeds of their own doom, making way for new ideas to come
along, no matter how humble the origins, and in the matter of reshaping of
realities, winner takes all. It's all in Pirsig: the war between the
Stasis of the Status Quo, and the Dynamism of the Outsider. All these
'earth-shaking' cultures inevitably slid into Stasis, which is, in itself,
not evil. However, they were the mighty oak, and Western Tradition was the
supple weed. And the lesson of Western philosophy? Talk a good game, but
make sure you're the blackest bastard on the planet.
Mark Grundy
Warren wrote:
| Thomas Lindgren posts about magic that is unreliable because of
| dependence on supernatural entities.
| I could see a rather broad spectrum or unreliability here. At one
| extreme, agreements with supernatural creatures might be truly
| binding, and the unreliability could be solely from ambiguities in
| the phrasing of agreements. At the other extreme, the supernatural
| entities might be free to ignore agreements, protective circles, and
| what have you, in which case magic would only work when these
| entities felt like humoring the humans.
| In between, you'd have cases where agreements were nonbinding but
| magicians could punish the supernatural entities, or where
| agreements were binding only in the sense that the human legal
| system is binding, perhaps being enforced by more powerful
| supernatural entities for thier own reasons.
I'm considering using an `in between' form for mages in my _In
Nomine_ game(s). In this world, supernal and infernal entities have
their own rules and motivations. They are often binding motivations,
but are little known or understood by humans. Through trial and
painful error, humans have learned that some things can draw the
attention of these entities, and bribe or compell them -- but the
knowledge is hazy, and often the expectations or rationalisations of
human mages are plain wrong.
What will make this interesting is that the PCs are the
supernatural entities, not the humans. They know why they do stuff;
they often have urgent needs, and they'll have to deal with fruitloop,
magic-using humans with delusions of grandeur and arcane wisdom.
---
Dr Mark Grundy, Dept. Comp. Science, Ph: +61-2-6249 3785
Researcher, Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-2-6249 0010
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy
ANU 0200 Australia Email: Mark....@anu.edu.au
Barry Gold
In article <880980...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have a recent single-volume printing. lacking the citations. It's a
>fascinating read.
The single volume version of Frazier lacks not just the
citations but also the thrust of his argument which
-- without ever quite saying it -- puts Christianity's
dying and reborn god as part of a general pattern found
in many cultures.
--Lee Gold
scott....@3do.com
In article <19971202044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>
> Thomas Lindgren posts about magic that is unreliable because of dependence on
> supernatural entities.
>
> yet. I'd be interested in peoples' opinions on just how unreliable such magic
> should be.
>
Well on a purely OOC take on it. i prefer magic to be as reliable as any
of the other skills in the game. I >intensely dislike< and have extreme
prejudices against unreliable tools, and as a player prefer logical,
somewhat mechanistic systems. As I am not a mage in real life, nor am I a
product of the character's society, I am quite happy to deal with
instances of mechanics to get the job done. in this case. Flavor is in
the description, and the cleverness of the build systems. i would tinker
with systems and takes a little in the Herosystem. to get just the sort
of effect and implementation i wanted for my campaigns, then issue 'Style
sheets' to the players to follow. Unrelaibe magic, or magic based on
extemporaneous rap or rhyme, is not my idea of a good workable game
system, because the former is an unreliable tool, and I would just have
to use a sword to get the job done, and the latter, because i am not an
improvisational performer, and dislike RL performance quality to be a
determining factor of Game World spell effects.
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brett Evill
> I'm considering using an `in between' form for mages in my _In
> Nomine_ game(s). In this world, supernal and infernal entities have
> their own rules and motivations. They are often binding motivations,
> but are little known or understood by humans. Through trial and
> painful error, humans have learned that some things can draw the
> attention of these entities, and bribe or compell them -- but the
> knowledge is hazy, and often the expectations or rationalisations of
> human mages are plain wrong.
>
> What will make this interesting is that the PCs are the
> supernatural entities, not the humans. They know why they do stuff;
> they often have urgent needs, and they'll have to deal with fruitloop,
> magic-using humans with delusions of grandeur and arcane wisdom.
I pity the magician who summons Vitell (my PC).
Brett Evill
I should not have said so. I got the message pretty clearly when I read it.
Psychohist
Scott Ruggels posts, in part:
Well on a purely OOC take on it. i prefer magic to be
as reliable as any of the other skills in the game.
I wonder if you could expand on how broad your preference is. Will you dislike
a game just because magic in it is unreliable, even if you are not playing a
magician? Or do you only object with regard to magic that your characters, and
by extension you, have to use?
Would it make a difference if there were several forms of magic, some of which
were logical and "somewhat mechanistic", and others of which were unpredictable
and unreliable?
Warren Dew
woodelf
> [Alex launches into the obvious counterargument to any subjective
> reality postulate outside Tekumel ...]
>
> In article <nbarmore-301...@purple.cs.wisc.edu>,
> woodelf <nbar...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > right, and which people deserve what land, and so on. IOW, if the impact
> > of the beliefs of a small percentage or the populace was zero, rather than
> > proportional to the percentage, and an effect only began to be manifest
> > when a significant percent of the population believed it, there would be
> > far fewer changes.
>
> ... and we'd all be Chinese, and the development of the Western mode
> of thought would have never occured ...
unless the monasteries, together, exceeded that threshhold. or some other
significant group in the development of Western society.
> Unless you're also postulating some 'favoured frame of reference' to
> Western modern thought. While Europe was a land of barbarians, the
> Maya, Aztecs and other pre-Columbian civilizations flourished.
what if effects were semi-local? so, the Chinese won't shape medieval
Europe because it's too far outside of their everyday contact. ditto the
others you mention. thus, the "colonization" of the new world becomes a
literal clash of realities, as two incompatible visions of reality come
into contact for the first time.
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
woo...@cs.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
The Universe is governed by the complex interweaving of three things:
matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest. --G'Kar
woodelf
In article <01bcfd5c$1b54eba0$2581...@idyoung.atlantica.net>, "Ian
Absentia" <Xidy...@XseanetX.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see a game developed that treats modern-day
> magic as the result of conjuring and abjuring beings from other spheres of
> power. Just a thought.
isn't that how it works in CoC?
No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of
arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need
for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies can
not stand....Though it take a thousand years, we will be free. --G'Kar
Christopher Tavares
Just one thing to throw in on this debate. As someone familiar with
the scientific method, my first response upon begin introduced to
magic based on "spirits" or "begins of power" would be to ask "Ok, how
do THEY do it?" not "How do I get THEM to do it for me?" A magic
system that uses spirits just dodges the question about how "magic"
works. There still needs to be a mechanism through which these spirits
do their thing.
-Chris
--
This message brought to you by the National Non-Sequitur Society
We may not make sense, but the panda is a giant racoon.
----------------...@connix.com--------------------
Brian Gleichman
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971202044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> I use this as one of several forms of magic, but it hasn't been fully
defined
> yet. I'd be interested in peoples' opinions on just how unreliable such
magic
> should be.
>
> I could see a rather broad spectrum or unreliability here. At one
extreme,
> agreements with supernatural creatures might be truly binding, and the
> unreliability could be solely from ambiguities in the phrasing of
agreements.
> At the other extreme, the supernatural entities might be free to ignore
> agreements, protective circles, and what have you, in which case magic
would
> only work when these entities felt like humoring the humans.
<snip>
> Which of these would make for the best game play? Which is the most
consistent
> with historical 'magic'?
Finally got around to answering this :)
As far as historical 'magic' is concerned.. I think you can find a example
of just about anything if you look long enough. Well, maybe not D&D magic
:) If not in practice, certainly in legend/myth. You'd have to pick a
place and time for comparison to determine how consistent something is with
'historical magic'.
As for which would be better in play... I use all of them. I find the
variety useful for balance and story as well as being one of the primary
trademarks of each type of magic within my game.
In general, I allow the mage to bind and completely control mystical beings
of low power. As the power of the creature increase, requirements for
control become harder. At high power levels, you must make deal-deals and
hope you worded them right (or right enough to meet cost-benefit anyway).
And then there are those chaotic forces you can only hope to channel
towards your goals.
The full range you described, modified by the approach each style of magic
takes. Some types don't deal with any of these creatures. Some deal with
them more than others. One type is centered completely on such things.
It works nicely, and fits well with my use of character class in my
home-grown rule set (it's rather surprising that I use character classes,
but that's a another story).
Frank G. Pitt
In article <b.evill-0112...@tynslip2.apana.org.au>,
b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>Frazer was certainly imaginative in his reconstructions, and more
>evocative in his writing than is acceptable now. He was doubtless
>selective in his choice of illustrative cases. But no-one has accused him
>of lying about the evidence.
Just to provide a more modern and different viewpoint, I suggest those
reading this thread read "The Spell of the Sensuous" by David Abram.
This is partially the biographical story of a modern, Western,
sleight-of-hand magicican travelling through several tribal lands
and learning and exchanging his magic for that of the shamen and others.
It's also a bit of a philosphical look at the sort of
"belief defines reality" statement that someone else mentioned here.
One of the most graphic examples of how "tribal magic" could be
"explained" by "modern science" appears in this book, that of
appealing to the spirits of the jungle to not have ants infest their
storehouses by placing offerings of rice at each corner of the
compound. This custom appeared to work, and always, the piles of rice
were gone by the next morning.
Abram decided to watch, and noted that the rice was removed overnight by
a steady stream of ants. Obviously, the ants had "learned" that it was
easier to accept the offering than risk death in the storehouses. But
the interesting thing is that when confronted with this "cause" of the
renmoval of the supposed "mysterious" removal of the rice, the shamen
stated that of course the ants were removing the rice, the ants were
part of the jungle, just as the tribe was, and so they were also part
of the spirit world and the spirits were just ensuring that the ants
had food by allowing the ants to take the offering for them.
The main thrust of the book being that the two views are not
neccessarily incompatible, perhaps biology can explain the
mechanical "how" of such a situation, but it can't explain the
"why" in any believable way. Why, when more food was available
in the storehouse, did the ants not take more ?
If we invest intelligence in the ants we can speculate that they
somehow reasoned that it was in their best intersts not to antagonize
the tribe, but that's really pushing it a bit for a "scientific"
explanation.
Anyyway, while I found some of Abram's reasoning faulty, it was
an interesting book, and does provide a few insights.
Frankie
Tim Toner
Christopher Tavares wrote in message <348ad94c...@news.connix.com>...
>Just one thing to throw in on this debate. As someone familiar with
>the scientific method, my first response upon begin introduced to
>magic based on "spirits" or "begins of power" would be to ask "Ok, how
>do THEY do it?" not "How do I get THEM to do it for me?" A magic
>system that uses spirits just dodges the question about how "magic"
>works. There still needs to be a mechanism through which these spirits
>do their thing.
Of course, the problem with this is that similar reduction will invalidate
science. One can say, "How do mages do it?" and get a reply, "Spirits."
Then if one says, "What of spirits?" he might receive the reply, "Widgets,"
with a satisfactory explaination about the nature of widgets, which DOES beg
the question, "What of widgets?" Likewise, however, one can strip down
scientific reality from molecules to atoms to subatomic particles to quarks,
and so on, eventually reaching a point when, frankly, you're just guessing.
That's the nature of being human--knowing when to say when.
John H Kim
I'm back! Some comments here on unreliable magic. I've
looked over the thread a bit -- but please excuse if I've missed
early parts of the discussion. (I was taking time out to get
married and go on my honeymoon.)
A bunch of this was debate over a real-world "paradigm"
for magic -- like singing or mathematics. IMO you really should
consider the different aspects of what this means...
- Randomness: Magic can be unreliable the same way that technology
or even mathematics can be unreliable in practice. The laws
of mathematics are rigid, but that doesn't mean that a
mathematician can't screw up a complex problem.
The issue of paradigm here are: how easily can a mage
screw up, what are the consequences of her doing so, how can
he avoid screw-ups, etc.
There are various magic systems which give a variety of
magical botches, or simply allow any effects subject to a
standard roll. IMO these are philosophically not that
different from a standard fixed-spell system like AD&D
(which allows invention of new spells).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
- Subjectivity/Intagibles: Magic can also be "unreliable" in
including subjective judgements which are included in results.
A good example in games is where you can invent an effect,
but then have to justify (to the GM, presumably) why it falls
into particular spheres. i.e. You have a spell to melt
rock -- is it an Earth spell (with Fire secondary) or a
Fire spell (with Earth secondary). The system makes this a
subjective choice...
On the one hand, there is a fair amount of magic in
folklore which has these sort of poorly-defined parameters.
Spells for "good luck", or love potions, or processes to
illuminate one's soul are all not objectively defined.
Often in myth, magic will succeed precisely, but not in
the way expected or intended (i.e. someone is magically
protected against drowning, so he is killed before hitting
the water or somesuch).
I find this rather problematic in RPG's, however. The
problem is that it is the player's and the GM who make these
subjective arguments and decisions. When the definitions are
fuzzy, the results can depend more on the personality and
viewpoint of the GM rather than on something inherent in the
world.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Tim Toner <than...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Christopher Tavares wrote in message <348ad94c...@news.connix.com>...
>> A magic system that uses spirits just dodges the question about
>> how "magic" works. There still needs to be a mechanism through
>> which these spirits do their thing.
>
>Of course, the problem with this is that similar reduction will invalidate
>science. One can say, "How do mages do it?" and get a reply, "Spirits."
>Then if one says, "What of spirits?" he might receive the reply, "Widgets,"
>with a satisfactory explaination about the nature of widgets, which DOES beg
>the question, "What of widgets?" Likewise, however, one can strip down
>scientific reality from molecules to atoms to subatomic particles to quarks,
>and so on, eventually reaching a point when, frankly, you're just guessing.
I think this proves more the invalidity of reductionism than
the invalidity of science. Since Newton, science has been about
*describing* nature more than *explaining* it. Newton gave that the
planets attracted each other with a 1/R^2 relation -- as to *why*
they were attracted in this way, it was irrelevant. The law told
us how nature acted...
Similarly, the important thing with spirits is to determine
what they can do, and how they go about doing it (i.e. the steps
they need to take, the difficulties involved, etc.). It's only
if you want a particular esthetics or metaphysics, that these
have to fit into some philosophical system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <66imdm$uh$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> - Subjectivity/Intagibles: Magic can also be "unreliable" in
> including subjective judgements which are included in results.
> A good example in games is where you can invent an effect,
> but then have to justify (to the GM, presumably) why it falls
> into particular spheres. i.e. You have a spell to melt
> rock -- is it an Earth spell (with Fire secondary) or a
> Fire spell (with Earth secondary). The system makes this a
> subjective choice...
> I find this rather problematic in RPG's, however. The
> problem is that it is the player's and the GM who make these
> subjective arguments and decisions. When the definitions are
> fuzzy, the results can depend more on the personality and
> viewpoint of the GM rather than on something inherent in the
> world.
Several of our recent campaigns have worked like this, _Radiant_ in
particular (we call it psionics, but it behaves according to subjective
laws like magic). It can work pretty well if the GM and player(s) are
in synch, especially if both parties have some say in how things
work out. It can also end up, as you say, putting too much
emphasis on "psyching the GM" and similar manuvers.
What it's really good for is characters who are exploring their
powers and don't have a solid understanding of them. It's much more
iffy for characters who are proficient and professional. In _Radiant_
we tend to treat the two kinds differently: trained psychics have
very concrete skill lists and some fairly clear idea what those
skills do, whereas people like Marcus have very vague skills and
relatively little understanding of what to expect. It makes sense
to me that subjective factors might be more important in the absence
of training: I know my ability to do things "by guess and by
golly" is more dependent on my state of mind than my ability to do
practiced tasks.
It's really bad, though, for answering questions like "What kinds of
effects can Large Organization muster, and what price will it pay
for them?" In general, all of the soft-and-fuzzy magic systems
work better for PCs than for NPCs, unless you are willing to run
rather dramatist (NPCs do whatever you need them to) or NPC magicians
are quite rare. It's hard for the GM to spare the processing power
to consider the subjective experiences of a host of NPCs.
We've also found that with any type of "fuzzy" or subjective magic
system you have to put extra effort into defining and patrolling
character spheres of ability; otherwise you can have characters who
expand into each others' niches, or just develop abilities that
are not good for the game. This is a perpetual problem with
_Radiant_, especially since Markus is extremely prone to try things
he ought not to be able to do.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
scott....@3do.com
In article <19971204163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>
> Scott Ruggels posts, in part:
>
> Well on a purely OOC take on it. i prefer magic to be
> as reliable as any of the other skills in the game.
>
> I wonder if you could expand on how broad your preference is. Will you
dislike
> a game just because magic in it is unreliable, even if you are not playing a
> magician?
Sort of. I do not want to have the character(s) live dependant upon
"shoddy tools". If the mage of unreliable school, is of little life and
death consequence I would mind less.
>Or do you only object with regard to magic that your characters,
and
> by extension you, have to use?
>
> Would it make a difference if there were several forms of magic, some of which
> were logical and "somewhat mechanistic", and others of which were
unpredictable
> and unreliable?
That's the way I ran my old campaign. Several differentvarieties of magic,
allrigidly segregated by methodology and class of result. Some were more
reliable than others.
>
> Warren Dew
R. Serena Wakefield
My spies inform me that, on Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:16:02 -0500, Sea Wasp
<sea...@wizvax.net>, hiding under the bedcovers, scribbled in the
following in their diary:
>Jem Lewis wrote:
>> Try to sing after drinking a gallon of milk, or sing and eat a peanut
>> butter sandwich at the same time, or try to sing whilst a horde of very
>> angry people with sharp swords rushes towards you with the intent to remove
>> the rather tight bond between head and neck.
> And that's usually taken into account in RPG magic (the latter one,
>anyway). Very few systems make magic reliable IN BATTLE CONDITIONS. But
>magic ITSELF is reliable, it's only the human component's ability to
>reproduce the proper formulae under stress that's unreliable.
>Mathematics is utterly reliable, but try doing a differential equation
>when angry people with swords, etc. (Who was it ... can't remember the
>author's name... wrote a series where math basically equaled magic,
>equations were spells, and so on; quite funny).
(Was that de Camp and Pratt's "Compleat Enchanter"? It's on my
to-read pile, but I haven't gotten to it yet.)
> So, why should magic produce definable, codified
>> results each time? Too much arm shake there, a little sniffle in the
>> incant, and boom! Something else came up, totally unexpected.
> But again, there it's not the MAGIC that's unreliable, it's the person.
>If the person did the right thing the right way, it should work the same
>way every time. And, in fact, if it wasn't actually EFFECTIVELY pretty
>reliable, no one would use it. You couldn't teach it effectively or
>safely, and it wouldn't be very useful. After all, if you can't be sure
>if you're going to get a fireball or a summoned elephant today, what's
>the point?
It's the "pretty reliable" that's in question. Obviously, if every
time a spell is cast the GM just rolls on the Bag of Many Things or
Wand of Wonder table, nobody is going to use it. (Well, in TOON they
still might, but ...)
If, however, the *general effect* of magic is always the same but the
*specifics* vary, the system could be quite interesting. For
instance, a mage could cause her opponent to be transformed into a
small animal. Most of the time,the spell would turn the opponent into
a woodchuck or iguana ... but wolverines also qualify.
A magic system like this would have to be constructed carefully;
perhaps a mage could either produce random results quickly with no
preparation, or exact results in a few hours with extensive material
components. This system would mirror world like Alan Dean Foster's
"Spellsinger" universe, where one character's fast, easy spells are
unreliable and another character's slower wizardry works every time.
Still, it's an idea.
--
R. Serena Wakefield
rai...@pretensions.GATE.net (drop your pretensions to e-mail)
Serena's Sanctuary: http://www.gate.net/~raistw
Torben AEgidius Mogensen
I can recall one instance of a book in which magic is inherently
unreliable: In Hardys "Master of the five magics", alchemy requires
you to mix certain ingredients, but there is a very precise
probability that you will get something other than intended. Hence,
alchemists mix many small portions and throw away the ones that don't
work (it is usually quite clear which these are, and an alchemic
formula will describe both the probability and how to distinguish the
good and the bad outcomes). It is fairly clear from the book that the
failing probability is inherent and not a case of being sloppy or
such.
The other magics in the book are pretty reliable, assuming you do the
right things at the right times.
If the successful effect is sufficiently interesting and the
nonsuccessful ones reasonably harmless, then even inherently
unreliable magic is worthwhile. You might avoid betting your life on
the outcome if you can, so it may not be useful in combat situations
(unless you can do normal fighting at the same time or successful
results are _very_ powerful).
Most magic systems in RPGs let success/failure chance of magic depend
on the casters skill (as well as adverse situations), so this would
indicate the reliable-but-difficult type of magic. I don't recall any
magic system where the success chance is independent of the magicians
skill (unless it always succeeds). This wouldn't mean that all mages
are equal, as some may know more spells than others or have more
"spell points".
It could actually get quite interesting if each spell has a specified
success chance and a specified effect at failure (instead of just
having no effect at all).
Torben Mogensen (tor...@diku.dk)
Philip Tillsley
Christopher Tavares wrote:
> Just one thing to throw in on this debate. As someone familiar with
> the scientific method, my first response upon begin introduced to
> magic based on "spirits" or "begins of power" would be to ask "Ok, how
> system that uses spirits just dodges the question about how "magic"
> works. There still needs to be a mechanism through which these spirits
> do their thing.
So this poses a different question, should magic be _explainable_?
Perhaps also, should it be explainable in the context of a game system,
or should it be given a system where the specifics of why, and even how,
are not explained, or only partially, although they may be known (or
not) by the designers. Should the GM be told the 'why's but not the
players (not that players won't find out anyway :)
Cabal has a situation where magic once was understood, but the knowledge
has been lost (in many areas of the world, practising magic is
punishable by death). Now spells are cast only from written texts (not
magic scrolls, but like scripts for a play that define the sounds and
movements to make).
As for reliability, the system will allow for unreliable magic. As the
skill of the user decreases and the power of the magic worked increases,
the chances of failure increase, and the likely magnitude of the
consequences also becomes higher.
Philip Tillsley
GameForge
--
___ _ ____ __,===========,__ ____ _ ___
(___>(_)(____)(__ GameForge __)(____)(_)<___)
|_| `===========' |_|
(.) (.)
|_| Contact GameForge at: |_|
(.) ho...@pasteur.dialix.com.au (.)
|_| _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |_|
(.)--(_)--(_)--(_)--(___)--(_)--(_)--(_)--(.)
|_| |_|
(.) - Creators of - (.)
|_| Cabal: Dark Fantasy Roleplaying |_|
(.) (.)
|_| http://www.gameverse.com/newrpg |_|
(___), , . ., ,, , . . , (___)
"~"~"~`"~""~`""~`""~""`~""~""``""~"`"~"`"""~"~"
John H Kim
A quick comment on the cosmology of _Mage_...
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@sff.net> wrote:
>b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>>Certainly. The theory of subjective reality cannot explain even the
>>paradigm shifts within our present Western culture, let alone the
>>succession of cultures in western Europe.
>
>Just so. The theory -does- work, albeit in cosmological terms I find
>very unappealing, if you assume that there are privileged
>observers. Some handful of people have the (generally unconscious)
>power to reshape reality. In Mage these would include the PCs.
Hmmm. The problem here is that the people of the
Technocracy (supposedly the dominant force in the current
world) do not believe in the scientific worldview. They
understand and believe in magic.
The _Mage_ universe does have complex laws which depend
on select people -- but they seem to have very little to do with
what anyone actually believes.