What does it mean powerfull magic

[Randover]

Masters of secrets, wizards etc. What kind of magic makes them look cool?

I know this is something as wanting you to name complete list of setting from fantasy fiction and actual game play. But my players let this into a strage argument.

What is Cool?

Are there any guidelines? I have a strange feeling that this argument is about Solo-advetures, and Team-plays. But I can't put my fingers on it.

Solo-advetures are about that character realy is solo, or has group, that actualy can't affect his work. Part of the character is build about unique ability. We could say a safe-field, where character and player both are protected from concurence in absolute sence.

Team-play. There might be niche protection but basicly the group trust each other, and if character has unique ability it exist solely to enchance the group performance. NO big secrets relly on this particular ability and no sane GM puts the plot hidden away from all but one character.

So again what is cool for mages? Abilites to hurl fireball, walk astral plane? And are there any guide lines, that will show me as a GM that the player realy don't want to play a Team-game. He would raher act on his own.

I am pretty confident that I could supply both of these. Dispite my curent trend to make team games.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Randover

Masters of secrets, wizards etc. What kind of magic makes them look cool?

1. An unusual understanding of the world that lends itself to practical uses. A scholarly mage ought to know that which is hidden to normal people: how to find fairies, for instance, or how to read omens, or the names of the demons and dark things that prowl the night.. and what to say to them if you meet them. A craftsman ought to be a master of their craft; they should be able to produce items of such quality, or of such beauty, or with such speed, that it seems like magic. The older a mage is, the wiser he ought to be, but even a young mage should have some special knowledge.

2. Inherent magicalness. How many mages have you seen in fantasy who can talk to animals, or who can cause objects in their home to float through the air.. but without using an explicit spell to do it? How about mages who can see people's destinies, or know how they're going to die, or know when they're being watched, not because they used a spell but because it's simply part of their power? Mages who can trick or command others by sheer force of will?

So basically, a cool mage is pretty much the opposite of a D&D mage. If you took away a D&D mage's spells he'd just be a boring, ordinary guy. A cool mage is someone who's always extraordinary, never ordinary.

[Randover]

Great point Xplo, thanks.

Hidden Lore - is something, that realy counts. Plus the innate gifts of being a mage, without the need for too many numbers.

But how to weave it into a consistent game? In gurps terms.

If wizard know fairies or vampires and is only one in the group who can negotiate with them, the party might get bored if the whole game is trully about fairies and there own world. If I give him a side-line it's atractivness pull the wizard futher away from the group and the main story.

And as for the inherent magic. I did my share in narrative fashion games. And if I allow for instance players to levitate stuff at there home. They start to build theories around it. Thinking that they could use levitation in heat of battle. If I play alond wizards overshadow the fighters because he has more options and has more fun in fights. If I forbid it from use, the wizards is feels felt out of battle. (We always do tactical batles, using hexes and such.)

[tg_ambro]

Originally Posted by Randover

And as for the inherent magic. I did my share in narrative fashion games. And if I allow for instance players to levitate stuff at there home. They start to build theories around it. Thinking that they could use levitation in heat of battle. If I play alond wizards overshadow the fighters because he has more options and has more fun in fights. If I forbid it from use, the wizards is feels felt out of battle. (We always do tactical batles, using hexes and such.)

I think a perk that grants Telekinesis 1 (only when out of combat, only for small items) would fit that bill pretty well. I think perks like Convenience Casting and Intiutive Cantrip (found in GURPS Thaumatology: Magical Styles) really help capture the feel of an innately magical wizard.

The other thing is that if a PC can't do something, or go into debt for it, I don't allow it. That seems to keep things simple and easy, sometimes you need a firm hand.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by tg_ambro

I think a perk that grants Telekinesis 1 (only when out of combat, only for small items) would fit that bill pretty well. I think perks like Convenience Casting and Intiutive Cantrip (found in GURPS Thaumatology: Magical Styles) really help capture the feel of an innately magical wizard.

Another option is to simply allow many extra levels of Magery that are Limited to "Home only". This would be -80% for an ordinary home (tower, villa), or probably -75% for a very large home (palace) and -70% if it also covers one or a few square kilometers.

Also make the home an Energy Reserve. I don't know if there are rules for Truly Immobile Gadgets somewhere (GURPS SUpers or GURPS Thaumatology), or even for merely ordinarily Immobile ones (like a multi-ton standing stone), but it should be possible to get close to -80% in Gadget Limitations if the Energy Reserve only works in one location, so that's a lot of extra Energy Points to use for those spells whose mana cost is not lowered to zery by the many, many levels of Home-Only Magery.

[Randover]

Back to my first post.

Team vs. Solo play. Its not just myth. Some players realy miss the point of the game. Wizards are most typical of those. There moto: Not to play the same game as others. Well how about it. Even if you offer them this deal, they aren't happy because there part is not the major.

One example of bad roleplaying: My own :o)
It took me nearly two years to allow me to play Enchanter. The guy was usefull to the group and could perform enchanting on his own because energy for that particular fing was sellable comodity, enchanting reargents.

And the GM was kind and allowed it. But simply I wasn't happy. I've spent most of my points on possibility to work as profesional enchanter - using it only as background. "I am a wizard, I used to work as succesfull enchanter." That would be nice Delusion and the character would be perfect fit into the group.

But because he actualy was like that (real deal enchanter). His Enchanting never come to me as fun. He was nearly crippled when it came to anything adventurous. I guess my GM should have saind NO. But after all, why should he care?

Back to the topic of Coolness of mages and wizards. The point is when you give them what they want, some magic/cheat - using players hope that there wonderfull ability will entertain them.

So is there some limit under wich you can allow wizard, that miss part of the game and there players do enjoy it?

[Refplace]

Its like anything else. Most players like some time to shine. The trick is giving them that opportunity without taking up too much time when others are not involved. If you can do it as a bunch of short little ancedotes it works well.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Randover

If wizard know fairies or vampires and is only one in the group who can negotiate with them, the party might get bored if the whole game is trully about fairies and there own world. If I give him a side-line it's atractivness pull the wizard futher away from the group and the main story.

I think this is basically a question of design. Why is the mage hanging out with all those fighter and thief guys? How does he contribute to the party? Spindly, frail old men don't usually go on dangerous adventures, so if the campaign is going to have a lot of fighting, the mage ought to be able to handle himself in a fight, or at the very least be able to help the others (illusions, buffing spells, etc) and have some way to defend himself if he's attacked so he's not a liability. If the campaign doesn't have a lot of fighting, why are all the fighters there? Maybe they have ties to the magical world too.

Also, there's no reason why the other PCs always have to stand around idle while the mage does his thing. If the mage is negotiating with fairies or vampires, maybe the fighters are outside, holding off a horde of their mutual enemies. Or maybe the negotiations turn ugly. Or maybe the negotiations are all a ruse to distract them while the thief pilfers some important artifact.

And if I allow for instance players to levitate stuff at there home. They start to build theories around it. Thinking that they could use levitation in heat of battle. If I play alond wizards overshadow the fighters because he has more options and has more fun in fights. If I forbid it from use, the wizards is feels felt out of battle. (We always do tactical batles, using hexes and such.)

Part of this goes back to character design: if you're going to have a lot of fighting, make sure that the mages can contribute and defend themselves. The mage players shouldn't mind having magic powers they can't use in battle, as long as they have powers they can use.

Other than that I saw some good ideas in this thread, like making those special abilities only work out of combat, or making the mage more powerful when he's at home. (If the PCs are going to be adventuring all the time, you may even want to give the mage PC the "only at home" abilities as a bonus in addition to the campaign point total, so he doesn't have to waste his points on abilities he never gets to use.) Another possibility is slapping a Pact (GM) on inherent magic, so that the abilities only work when you think they're appropriate.. but the player might be annoyed at having an ability that you won't let him use a lot of the time, especially if you can't agree on which uses are appropriate.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Randover

Team vs. Solo play. Its not just myth. Some players realy miss the point of the game. Wizards are most typical of those. There moto: Not to play the same game as others. Well how about it.

You're running a game for multiple people. Your player wants a game just for himself. It sounds like your player is out of luck. Tell him to let you know if he changes his mind and wants to play with a group.

Players should be making characters appropriate for the campaign. If the point if the game is to wander the land seeking fortune, or to go on special ops-style missions, then an enchanter who spends all his time at home enchanting items and selling them is an inappropriate character.

I guess my GM should have saind NO. But after all, why should he care?

If he had said no, you might have made a character that was more fun for you to play. I don't know if your GM cares whether you enjoy his game, but some GMs do.

[Randover]

Originally Posted by Xplo

Players should be making characters appropriate for the campaign. If the point if the game is to wander the land seeking fortune, or to go on special ops-style missions, then an enchanter who spends all his time at home enchanting items and selling them is an inappropriate character.

Just to imply how it worked. The character needed to go to adveture to find his resources. He wasn't the lab rat type. But simply being capable of enchantment made his weak in comparsion with other PCs, especialy the combat monsters. Having two combat monsters out of four characters was boring for me during combat. Eighter I wasn't there in the first place, or I went down after first two hits.
The mage had usufullness in combat he raised party DR per 2-4 with armour spell. And had skill with staff - though it wasn't his best choice.

That is why, even if the concept of non-combat character is vitalable in fiction. In gameplay I don't belive it could work. Or that it could be fun to play Support. Am I wrong, because it could be my subjective experience.