The Problem With Magic

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Magic is ubiquitous in Tolkien but not easily definable. Practically everything is magical in some way.

"J.R.R. Tolkien discussed the operations and moral dimensions of magic in Letter 155 of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. This letter is actually an unsent part of a draft of Letter 154 which was dated September 25, 1954. Magic in Middle-earth was explained as an innate ability set of the Ainur and the Firstborn, to the exclusion of other peoples." http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Magic#Magic_by_race

But Tolkien's own works throw a monkey wrench into that view so it is hard to figure out just what the magic level of Middle Earth really was. It certainly was lower then the average D&D setting.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by maximara

"J.R.R. Tolkien discussed the operations and moral dimensions of magic in Letter 155 of The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. This letter is actually an unsent part of a draft of Letter 154 which was dated September 25, 1954. Magic in Middle-earth was explained as an innate ability set of the Ainur and the Firstborn, to the exclusion of other peoples." http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Magic#Magic_by_race

But Tolkien's own works throw a monkey wrench into that view so it is hard to figure out just what the magic level of Middle Earth really was. It certainly was lower then the average D&D setting.

Bring it back to GURPS or take it to the general roleplaying group. Final warning.

[kirbwarrior]

This actually is the one thing I'm okay with the system as is. It would be nice to have some sort of list of what spells to allow for certain settings/story/campaign types, but that's the least problematic issue of the system. Really, the way to solve this is the setting creator (most likely GM) determines what "magic" is/means in the setting, then goes through the book and makes either a list of what spells do exist or which don't exist (and if the spell is a prerequisite, just ignore that prereq). Once the book is well known, this process only takes like ten minutes.

Others have brought up the "This spell exists and thus changes the setting" issue of much of Magic, but there's a long list of problems with the system;

1) Skill inflation. I've heard different numbers (200-800) for the number of spells, but there are 500 skill in default GURPS and no character needs or even wants 10% of that, and often is built on far less (between 4 and 10), yet Magic wants you to buy 10s or maybe even 100s to play a generalist wizard, and even a true generalist in GURPS can just buy high DX/IQ and rely on defaults, which magic doesn't have.

2) Strange Cutoffs. Normal skills are "good enough" at 12, combat usable at 14, amazing at 16, etc. Yet Magic wants you to have basically ever spell at 15 (-1 mana, small limitations on use) or 20 (-2FP, just concentrate). Unless you're buying one spell, every wizard is basically going to look like IQM18 (combination of IQ and Magery to 18 so even VH spells are 15).

3) Non-generic prerequisite list. It doesn't seem to be based around balance or even strictly better spells, it seems based around a specific feel for making the setting come across a certain way... which isn't generic.

4) Odd levels of competency. A wizard can have ATR (Costs 4 FP/minute) for far less than 80pts (ignoring points in IQ since IQ is already worth it). They also can get Warp, infinite DR, time jumping, etc. I can and have made a wizard with all the above on less than 200pts. And on the other end of the spectrum, spells like Light and Barber are worse than Accessory perks.

5) No consistency in 'pricing' or spell creation. I am not certain how to figure out Time, Cost, and modifiers for new spells since some spells seem more expensive than better spells.

6) Very weak combat spells except those that can end combat instantly or completely negate it. I could almost accept just the first problem (maybe even say that's a weakness of magic in the setting) but the second part makes it very odd. This is like 4, but this is an entire section of roleplaying (combat, exploration, social) where a wizard's power level is very extreme based on spell choice and not point total.

7) Scaling. A combination of 2, 3, and 4 makes it's hard to be merely "good" at magic. Either you aren't at the correct cutoffs (and thus might never be good at magic) or you hit the special numbers and suddenly you're amazing (makes me think of that other game 3.5 where wizards suck until they are suddenly overpowered).

I could continue a nit pick list (Why does Great Haste make another target lose FP? Why lose instead of cost? How are energy costs determined for enchantments? Why are wizards with this absurd level of requirements to be good at enchanting ever paid Average Wealth?), but those 7 are the big issues I see with the system.

[scc]

Originally Posted by Rupert

My recollection is that in 3e, an assistant had to genuinely want the ceremony to succeed, and merely wanting to be paid wasn't enough. 4e removed this, and with it one of the main limitations on cheap large-scale ceremonies - in 3e they'd most likely be religious ceremonies for the benefit of the whole congregation, or at least a member of it who was in need. In 4e they're a commercial tool, assuming my memory is correct.

I'd say it's more that simply being paid is no longer ruled out as allowing you to contribute.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

...there's a long list of problems with the system...

We disagree on what are 'problems'.

1) Skill inflation.... there are 500 skill in default GURPS and no character needs or even wants 10% of that, and often is built on far less (between 4 and 10)

281. There are 281 skills (not counting spells) in GURPS Basic Characters.

I just made a Character with 112 skills. Let's not pretend that "between 4 and 10 skills" on a Character are the average. That's not even enough to get someone to the dungeon, let alone to survive once they got there.

2) Strange Cutoffs. Normal skills are "good enough" at 12, combat usable at 14, amazing at 16, etc. Yet Magic wants you to have basically ever spell at 15 (-1 mana, small limitations on use) or 20 (-2FP, just concentrate). Unless you're buying one spell, every wizard is basically going to look like IQM18 (combination of IQ and Magery to 18 so even VH spells are 15).

Magic makes no demands. It sets 15 at the level of 'amazing', that which a mage begins to see a reduction in skill cost. This is a holdover from 3e where hitting 15 was pretty damn amazing.

It's less so now, double less so in DF, but then DF considers skills of 16 to be "the basics needed to survive".

3) Non-generic prerequisite list.

This is a feature. Some like it, some hate it.

4) Odd levels of competency.

Another feature. One that, if you feel is a problem, Sorcery clears right up for you.

5) No consistency in 'pricing' or spell creation. I am not certain how to figure out Time, Cost, and modifiers for new spells since some spells seem more expensive than better spells.

It's remarkably consistent. Figuring out new spells isn't that hard.

6) Very weak combat spells except those that can end combat instantly or completely negate it.

That's not even accurate, so i'm not sure how to argue against it.

7) Scaling. A combination of 2, 3, and 4 makes it's hard to be merely "good" at magic. Either you aren't at the correct cutoffs (and thus might never be good at magic) or you hit the special numbers and suddenly you're amazing (makes me think of that other game 3.5 where wizards suck until they are suddenly overpowered).

This one is completely an opinion. And not even a clear one. What are these 'special numbers' where a mage goes from 'suck' to 'amazing' with one increase?

[Flyndaran]

My only issue is how very much non-generic Magic is. It has a whole suite of inset assumptions.
The "4th ed." is the only 4th ed. book I didn't get. I have the 3rd ones, and they are nice for DF games.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

281. There are 281 skills (not counting spells) in GURPS Basic Characters.

I've been getting inconsistent numbers about that a lot. Is there a handy place that does show the numbers of things (I'd also like a hard number of the number of spells that Magic has)? I remember being told that DX was better than IQ since DX has 300 skills to IQ's 200 (ignoring the much smaller list of skills on other attributes).

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I just made a Character with 112 skills. Let's not pretend that "between 4 and 10 skills" on a Character are the average. That's not even enough to get someone to the dungeon, let alone to survive once they got there.

I have no idea how you did that. I've never seen a character sheet of over 30 skills, and rarely over 20 skills that were primary or secondary (and those were single-party campaigns). At the point total that would allow 112+pts in skills known, I feel like you could have easily just buffed DX or IQ upwards of 20 and gotten similar results (unless the character does have 20 in both, then this does make sense). What were the skills?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Magic makes no demands. It sets 15 at the level of 'amazing', that which a mage begins to see a reduction in skill cost. This is a holdover from 3e where hitting 15 was pretty damn amazing.

It's less so now, double less so in DF, but then DF considers skills of 16 to be "the basics needed to survive".

Many spells go from 1 to 0 cost at 15, making them go from "almost worthless" to "spammable", at an even more distinct advantage than if 15 skill in Bow got rid of ammo and the need to load an arrow.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This is a feature. Some like it, some hate it.

The problem isn't whether people like it (I actually do like how it lines up in general), but rather for a system that's mostly generic this area seems very odd to be the place to not be generic, especially with the note that prerequisites aren't even a balancing tool. What is the setting? Why do certain spells have so many prerequisites?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Another feature. One that, if you feel is a problem, Sorcery clears right up for you.

The reason I find it to be a problem is that I can generally know how good a character is going to be if I ask everyone to make 200pt characters... except default Magic wizards. And on 200pts, they will outperform almost every niche quite easily. Which, there are two "balancing" things that can be done there;
A) Trimming the list. However, there is no handy way to determine what spells should be trimmed or the correct ways to limit them so they don't either shadow or outperform multiple niches.
B) Liberal use of anti-magic... which itself is an issue worth an entire thread of it's own. Short explanation; Once I starts using magic systems that didn't have anti-magic built into it (such as Magic as Powers), I dropped that issue.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

It's remarkably consistent. Figuring out new spells isn't that hard.

How would I build a spell that poisons someone? Or a spell that increases the size of the maintenance period of another spell? A reverse-drain spell that takes any injury (I don't know if it's fair to make a spell that is strictly better than Share Vitality)? Why is Great Haste only 5 mana when the spell creation system suggests a 3-1 ratio on pts to mana?

Originally Posted by evileeyore

That's not even accurate, so i'm not sure how to argue against it.

Time Slip has hilarious consequences since there's no resist check (attack enemy, Time Slip them, stand in their location, repeat for each part member), the entire Knowledge college can easily let you avoid combat on top of everything else it can do, Flight is pretty fantastic at controlling combat, Great Haste is an steal at skill 20 (oh wait, Accelerated Time is even better!), etc. A handful of properly applied spells and you can easily invalidate any combat you come across, just change for taste and party composition. And this is all assuming you didn't look for ways to regenerate FP/mana or negate costs further.

*I just reread things, apparently it's blocking spells that can't be cheapened, not missile spells, but considering how slow and expensive most are (Throw Spell is my best friend), it's hard to be combat worthy if you're going for damage. FP costs are going to kill you if you don't pay attention, so it's better to cast a few spells to entirely avoid a situation that would require a lot of spells.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This one is completely an opinion. And not even a clear one. What are these 'special numbers' where a mage goes from 'suck' to 'amazing' with one increase?

14 to 15 is a gigantic shift is usefulness. An invested wizard can get there with IQM, and then buy every spell ever for 1pt each. A dabbler or apprentice is far worse trying to imitate that with something like IQM 12.

From the many times I've tried to not build an amazing wizard (minimum spells at 15 with 1pt each), it's hard to do anything much with magic. I've yet to see a way where one spell that has no prerequisites at skill 14 is worth it, when there are tons of normal skills that are enough to do something incredible at skill 14 (Stealth, Fast Talk, really most sneak or face skills in general). It's hard to make a dabbler worth it and/or make a character who isn't at that nice 15 yet but could conceivably ever get there in the future. I can play a combat-heavy character and pick one skill wholly unrelated to combat at 12 (such as Merchant, Public Speaking, Driving) and that skill is still worth it.

Now, an argument could be made for Charms, letting you pick any one spell and ignore prerequisites, but even then it's hard to get to a level in skill that's worth the point investment (unless you pick one of the absurdly good spells). That works fine for NPCs (and in fact I love Charms for just that reason), but it's not really something a PC wants.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

This actually is the one thing I'm okay with the system as is. It would be nice to have some sort of list of what spells to allow for certain settings/story/campaign types, but that's the least problematic issue of the system. Really, the way to solve this is the setting creator (most likely GM) determines what "magic" is/means in the setting, then goes through the book and makes either a list of what spells do exist or which don't exist (and if the spell is a prerequisite, just ignore that prereq). Once the book is well known, this process only takes like ten minutes.

Others have brought up the "This spell exists and thus changes the setting" issue of much of Magic, but there's a long list of problems with the system;

1) Skill inflation.

While ritual magic helped get this under control I agree that the default system leaves much to be desired in terms of skill bloat. In a 1e Supers campaign (when Magic Power was a thing) with 500 points available Wizards that used the Magic system instead could function as effectively demi-gods and kick nearly everyone's butt.

IIRC you could, in theory, have Magery with the Reduced Fatigue Cost enhancement which really messed the balance up. They fixed that by the time the Compendium 1 came out (as well as nuking Magic Power from orbit by not referring to it at all)

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

2) Strange Cutoffs.

In the light of Expert being 14-20 it makes some degree of sense. My main beef with it is it encourages the kind of min-maxing that happened in Champions and Hero systems.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

3) Non-generic prerequisite list.

I don't think you can have a truly non-generic prerequisite list. It certainly is light years above level based system where spells have little to no relationship to each other.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

4) Odd levels of competency.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

5) No consistency in 'pricing' or spell creation.

Quite true. Look at my Ritual Magic based version of Slayer Anime spells. While some of the spells have Magic equivalents the cinematic nature of the setting (Lina can Dragon Slave towns into craters but people somehow survive) makes figuring out how to translate the spells to GURPS a real pain.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

6) Very weak combat spells except those that can end combat instantly or completely negate it. I could almost accept just the first problem (maybe even say that's a weakness of magic in the setting) but the second part makes it very odd. This is like 4, but this is an entire section of roleplaying (combat, exploration, social) where a wizard's power level is very extreme based on spell choice and not point total.

Conversely you don't wan't the situation where mages can shoot roughly 33,000 cubit feet of flaming death that fills any place it is cast in ala AD&D's fireball. Combat spells are always going to be a mixed bag.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

7) Scaling. A combination of 2, 3, and 4 makes it's hard to be merely "good" at magic. Either you aren't at the correct cutoffs (and thus might never be good at magic) or you hit the special numbers and suddenly you're amazing (makes me think of that other game 3.5 where wizards suck until they are suddenly overpowered).

I played the 2 and 1 versions of that game and wizards (aka Magic-users) were far worse. A 25 pt wizard in GURPS has more flexibility, greater utility, and better survivability then a 1st level MU. There was even a joke that you could kill a 1st level MU by throwing a house cat at them; I think that one made it to Murphy's Rules picturing a dead mage off to one side and a cat licking itself.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I could continue a nit pick list (Why does Great Haste make another target lose FP? Why lose instead of cost? How are energy costs determined for enchantments? Why are wizards with this absurd level of requirements to be good at enchanting ever paid Average Wealth?), but those 7 are the big issues I see with the system.

I agree the way enchantment is presented in Magic is really messed up with Fantasy and Thaumatology trying to fix things but only adding to the confusion. What is the cost of a weapon with Accuracy enchantment vs one made via Craft Magic? No clue.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

I have no idea how you did that. I've never seen a character sheet of over 30 skills, and rarely over 20 skills that were primary or secondary (and those were single-party campaigns). At the point total that would allow 112+pts in skills known, I feel like you could have easily just buffed DX or IQ upwards of 20 and gotten similar results (unless the character does have 20 in both, then this does make sense). What were the skills?

The three characters I'm playing at present in different campaigns are:

590 points, with 177 points in a total of 138 skills and 5 techniques on the character sheet.

276 points with 59 points in a total of 51 skills and no techniques on the character sheet.

217 points with 88 points in 80 skills and no techniques on the character sheet.

The first two characters are twentieth-century, the third is SF. All three are IQ-dominant characters, with IQs of 16, 15 and 15 respectively, which are at their respective campaign maximums. All of them have raised IQ by converting points in skills. None of them use spell-based magic, and all of them have some skills on the character sheet at zero points so as have the defaults ready to hand.

[AlexanderHowl]

The problem that I have with such characters is that they represent two of my fundamental problems with GURPS. GURPS rewards nature over nurture (when the primary evolutionary advantage of humans is our ability to learn from experience and training) and it rewards being a generalist over being a specialist (which really is thematically contrary to most fiction). If a PC came to my table with over 50 skills, I generally tell them to reduce them in half, as they would have never realistically had a chance to gain the experience or training for so many skills.

Since I rarely use standard magic (I use ritual magic if I use the standard spell list), the maximum number of magic skills decreases to around two dozen. It gets rid of the clutter on the character sheet and encourages specialization. It also makes it quite difficult for magic to change the economy, as a mage with IQ 10 and Magery 0 needs to invest around 66 CP to gain Continual Light-16 instead of 28 CP. Enchanted items likely become vanishingly rare, as enchanting items is quite difficult for ritual mages.