[Fantasy][Magic] Divine spellcasting, real-world religions, and fantasy settings

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Thinking about this more... while I admit my knowledge of western esotericism is fairly superficial, it seems to me that there are quite a few of what you might call quasi-scientific or pseudo-scientific magical practices that date back to the Renaissance if not earlier. I'm thinking of things like alchemy, astrology, and sympathetic magic.

This is my impression as well. Its not how people in the middle ages thought about things, but no one really runs games according to how folks in the middle ages thought. Our base literature and stories are generally based in how the early modern period thought.


Because RPG's have to use rules, there is an additional motive for magic systems to be well defined.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by ericthered

This is my impression as well. Its not how people in the middle ages thought about things, but no one really runs games according to how folks in the middle ages thought. Our base literature and stories are generally based in how the early modern period thought.

Well, not quite "no one." When I wrote Worminghall, and when I ran my Worminghall campaign, I did research on medieval life and thought.

[Tinman]

My answer to the OP is:
Magic: I like the DF does it & if you really need healing in the party you can do two things. 1- Let the wizard have healing spells. 2- Give extra cash or discounts for healing potions & healing gems.

Religion: I like that there are real world religions. It makes the world a lot more 'real' to me than the random pantheons in DF & D&D. I'd be ok with made-up monotheistic religions instead. (like the religions from the Videssos Cycle books by Harry Turtledove.)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

If no one wants to play a cleric, you're screwed for healing.

In my old gaming group I played That Other Game with, if nobody wanted to run a cleric, either there'd be a cleric NPC alongside the party, or someone would end up playing a cleric in addition to their main character. Such clerics invariably had no backstory, motivation, personality, etc, and were just there for healing (and occasionally fighting; I rather surprised the DM when the cleric I was saddled with playing hit a pretty challenging foe with Harm, and my main character followed up by killing him in one hit).

An alternative solution would be to allow for cheap healing items - potions, wands, etc (optionally with skill being necessary - it's not so difficult to get someone willing to play a combat medic, given that largely just means a bit of investment in First Aid or similar). Or things like letting rest restore a good deal of HP (maybe even allowing healing to full, like in JRPG's), giving everyone (magic items that grant) Regeneration (a lot of First Person Shooters these days have this), having healing NPC's available at each town (and a ready method of traveling back there; the Diablo series does this), etc.


As for the topic at hand, for the magic bit, I often favor the "impersonal forces" interpretation of magic, but also dislike the arbitrary nature (which honestly fits better with magic being the purview of spirits and gods) of most magic systems. If having different forms of magic, I prefer for them to be mechanically distinct rather than just fluffed a bit differently, or functioning exactly the same way but with different spells available, or whatever.

For the religion bit, I prefer for there to be multiple gods if there are any in a fantasy setting, essentially with gods being people who simply exist at a higher level than most... which pretty much means either using a "dead" religion or just making one up. And I lean toward the latter - I've already created a new world, why import our mythologies when I can just make a new one (although stealing elements from them also works, just as I steal elements from real-world cultures).

[thom]

For my DF-ish game I went with:
1] Magic is the DF way, no changes, and
2] I have a group of Chi-based, nonreligious "healers" who roam the world offering their services to all who pay

And it is the Alchemists who are pumping out healing potions/salves in the larger towns.

thom

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The prerequisite chain system is way too friendly towards dabbling; there are a number of game-changing options with very short prerequisite chains. For example, pretty much every PC wizard will want Recover Energy, at which point it's 1 point to add Might and 3 points to add Major Healing, and suddenly you're a quite competent support wizard.

I don't know how much of this issue is peculiar to the colleges wizards are banned from, though. Examples of very useful spells with a prerequisite count of 4 or less include Body of Air, Earth to Air, Earth Vision, Missile Shield, Mystic Mist, Reverse Missiles, and Shape Earth. Even Great Haste only has a prerequisite count of 6.

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Sanderson's laws of magic are also relevant: magic which major characters can invoke to solve obstacles has to be fairly well defined or its anticlimactic.

Originally Posted by ericthered

This is my impression as well. Its not how people in the middle ages thought about things, but no one really runs games according to how folks in the middle ages thought. Our base literature and stories are generally based in how the early modern period thought.


Because RPG's have to use rules, there is an additional motive for magic systems to be well defined.

I'm not sure how much needing rules for magic limits you to more rationalistic approachses, if the rules are based around folk concepts (e.g. folk psychology, folk biology, folk physics) and any ambiguities and edge cases are resolved according to pre-scientific "common sense" rather than by trying to make a rule that has scientific precision.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, not quite "no one." When I wrote Worminghall, and when I ran my Worminghall campaign, I did research on medieval life and thought.

Ah, I thought this thread was bringing back memories of another on the forum, I was thinking of this ongoing thread.

Originally Posted by Tinman

My answer to the OP is:
Magic: I like the DF does it & if you really need healing in the party you can do two things. 1- Let the wizard have healing spells. 2- Give extra cash or discounts for healing potions & healing gems.

Religion: I like that there are real world religions. It makes the world a lot more 'real' to me than the random pantheons in DF & D&D. I'd be ok with made-up monotheistic religions instead. (like the religions from the Videssos Cycle books by Harry Turtledove.)

Thanks for the answers. I'm curious, would you prefer DF to a system where there are many quite distinct sorts of specialist mages, but where their magic is all ultimately one thing.

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for the topic at hand, for the magic bit, I often favor the "impersonal forces" interpretation of magic, but also dislike the arbitrary nature (which honestly fits better with magic being the purview of spirits and gods) of most magic systems. If having different forms of magic, I prefer for them to be mechanically distinct rather than just fluffed a bit differently, or functioning exactly the same way but with different spells available, or whatever.

For the religion bit, I prefer for there to be multiple gods if there are any in a fantasy setting, essentially with gods being people who simply exist at a higher level than most... which pretty much means either using a "dead" religion or just making one up. And I lean toward the latter - I've already created a new world, why import our mythologies when I can just make a new one (although stealing elements from them also works, just as I steal elements from real-world cultures).

Thanks for the answers. I probably should have distinguished in the OP between using major modern world religions like Christianity or Hinduism, relatively young if not quite "major" religions like Haitian Vodou, and religions that are mainly of historical interest (a few reconstructionist practitioners aside). While all the details are up in the air, I'm likely to make the fantasy setting I'm working on an Infinite Worlds-esque alternate history, which suggests at least using variations of real-world religions (even if some religions were never invented in the timeline, and others developed in different directions). For example, if Amon of Judah had lived longer (say into his 60s) and remained in power, a form of Judaism might still exist but look very different, while Christianity and Islam might not exist at all.

[Fred Brackin]

[QUOTE=Michael Thayne;2430049


Thanks for the answers. I'm curious, would you prefer DF to a system where there are many quite distinct sorts of specialist mages, but where their magic is all ultimately one thing.

[/QUOTE]

Just as brief comment I'm usually annoyed at the commonly seen efforts to push mages into specialties. If i can playa gneralist it means my mage can either follow what interests him at the time or focus on what he needs at the time. I find this much more realistic.

Specialists end up with one tool and have to solve all their problems with that tool regardless of its' appropriateness. Very artifical.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Just as brief comment I'm usually annoyed at the commonly seen efforts to push mages into specialties. If i can playa gneralist it means my mage can either follow what interests him at the time or focus on what he needs at the time. I find this much more realistic.

Specialists end up with one tool and have to solve all their problems with that tool regardless of its' appropriateness. Very artifical.

To be clear, what I'm talking about when I talk about supporting specialists is something like the Magical Styles approach plus maybe offering Magery (One College Only).

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

To be clear, what I'm talking about when I talk about supporting specialists is something like the Magical Styles approach plus maybe offering Magery (One College Only).

I would never take One College Magery unless I was planning an absolute Johnny One Spell.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I'm not sure how much needing rules for magic limits you to more rationalistic approachses, if the rules are based around folk concepts (e.g. folk psychology, folk biology, folk physics) and any ambiguities and edge cases are resolved according to pre-scientific "common sense" rather than by trying to make a rule that has scientific precision.

What game magic can do needs to be well defined if PCs or major NPCs use it to resolve challenges in the plot AND the story is satisfying. I don't know if "well defined" and "rationalistic" mean the same to you.