Learnable vs. Inborn Magery

[DrTemp]

In my campaign, Magery is an (almost) entirely genetic trait. You either have it at level X or you don't, and there is no way (short from Greater Wish or certain very esoteric Ritual Magic, both of which are accessible only to a very, very select few people) to learn or increase magery. 1% of the population have M0, 0.1% have M1, 0.01% have M2, and 0.001% have M3+.

Now, from a setting POV, that's good for me, since it limits the number of powerful mages and thus the impact of magic on society.

During actual play, however, I found out that this setup leads to each and every PC mage having either M0 or M3, with nothing in between. The reason given is always the same: For M0, it's "so I can use all those Mage Only items for not so much cost", and for M3, it's "I don't want to limit my options for the future." That's totally understandable, people want to have fun, and the "CP shopping kick" is part of that.

So I figured that "learnable Magery" (or, in fact, learnable advantages) are probably the better approach, since everybody has all options all the time, at least theoretically. Unfortunately, that means that the Ghost Of Consistency And Plausibility (GOCAP) bites me and demands that I make magic either very new or a lot more common, since everybody could learn it. My solution, as mentioned above, was to make "being able to raise Magery" something one could learn, but the lore is not widespread (in fact, known to only a few dozen people on the continent, including the PC's). However, that makes the PC's very special, and maybe that's not good for every campaign concept.

GURPS Banestorm uses another approach: If you have inborn Magery at any level, you can learn it up, but if you don't have it, you're out of luck. This allows for a more classic dungeonanddragoning approach to the game, but seems to imply that eventually, many or even most wizards would reach high levels of power with time.

So I'd like to know what approaches to "being or becoming attuned to supernatural powers" you use in your game? Classic "Supers" (irreproducible circumstances make you powerful), or one of the above, or something entirely different? And why?

[Wedhro]

I had a similar problem a few time ago: I wanted mages to be very rare and magic almost unknown to common people, so I charged an additional Unusual Background as prerequisite to Magery (after all, UB is the main tool to change rarity level of traits). The campaign (3e) was starting at 100 points per character with disads capped at 40 points, and Magery basically innate but (very hardly) upgradable, so the only wizard in the party choosed to boost his IQ, buy a limited Magery 2, and something like 20 spells. His character reached 180 points in a few years of game time, but he never found a way to increase his awareness of supernatural (i.e. boost his Magery), so he preferred to spend his point in mundane skills and new spells.

[NineDaysDead]

Well, if you’re going to suggest magery is genetic, one thing to consider is genetics is affected by nurture; if you have the genetic potential to be the greatest sprinter ever, but all you do is sit on your arse and eat chocolate, then you not going to make it. On the other hand, just about anyone who does make the effort can improve their running speed and endurance.

Applying that to Magery, you could say that everyone can buy up to double their “inborn” magery (people with “inborn” magery 0 can buy up to magery 1, and those without magery can buy magery 0). That leads to a more realistic situation, where to be truly great you have to be born with the aptitude then work extremely hard to hone it.

[B9anders]

It's partially genetic in my setting in that basic magery is genetic, but one you have 'The Gift' you can learn to harness and develop it.

Overall, I've been thinking of creating two kinds of magery. One, the normal one, which is per the rules and is strictly genetic and another, less potent, version which can be learned in addition to one's original magery level.

failing that, I think ninedaysdead's model looks good.

[KlausPrinceOfTheUndeads]

Remember that requiring UB without giving any advantage in change means actually to increase the point cost of a trait. So, if Magery 3 is no more useful in your game world that in an high-magic word, your players are going to hate you - and for a good reason, IMHO.

[Brandy]

In my setting, unmodified levels of magery represent an inborn trait, and without an unusual background no level higher than magery 1 is allowed. Restricted levels of magery of the Magery (college) variety are available up to a total magery level of 4, and represent learning, not inborn ability.

Most mages are Magery-0, Magery (college)-2 or 3 types -- a minimal level of aptitude with relatively organized and specialized training.

Details on my website.

[Temrek]

In the setting I GM, magery can be learned up two levels higher then your natural one (to a max of 3). Someone with magery 0 or no magery can learn magery 2. Learning magic however is more difficult then its point cost would indicate, learning the basics of spellcasting could take up to 15 years for someone smart AND talented. And your magical ability is not anywhere near useful yet, its a very tedious investment and very few even try. After all a very small propotion of the people who masters the basics of magic get any further...

Its not 100% plausible but uts plasuible enough for me.

[sanguine]

Another option is to just say that people are born with varying native capacity for magic, but can learn it up to that capacity. In game terms, some part of the population can learn up to 0, fewer to 1, even fewer to 2, and a rare subset to Magery 3.

Then put all your PCs in whichever group they feel like roleplaying.

"Yes, I want to make a character who has the potential to learn Magery up to 3. I will start play with Magery 1."

There's nothing wrong with making your PCs the rare, exceptional types. They're already the weirdos who go out saving the world, or looting dungeons, or trading with fantastic magical beings, or whatever.

[Lord Carnifex]

It depends on the campaign I run... In most generic Fantasy campaigns, I'll pretty much use Banestorm's idea - if you don't have at least Magery 0, you'll never learn it short of dramatic intervention. If you've got at least Magery 0, you can "learn" higher levels. Usually I require some in-game justification - extended study of magic, divine intervention, a special tutor. One idea that seemed to work well is that your overall magery level is limited by the number of colleges you've put points in (ignoring Single-College magery, of course). So the more diversity you've got as a mage, the more over-all power you're able to garner.

OTOH, in other, especially hidden magic type campaigns, learning any level of Magery is all but impossible. My GURPS:Cthulhu campaign saw one NPC gain magery 0 through a *very* complex ritual, and one PC try the same thing until he realised exactly how much sacrifice it required.

Charging an Unusual Background for magery or high levels of same doesn't seem to irritate my players in low-magic campaigns... the higher cost is balanced by the fact that NPCs and the world in general don't expect magic, and so the ability to cast even very simple spells becomes a Big Deal.

[Pesterfield]

I like the idea of learnable magery, the problem is either finding a teacher or the time self teaching takes. Still a smart farmer could spend several winters going over spell books and pick up some useful stuff, if he shows promise neighbors could take over his fields so he can keep studying during the growing season.

It's why so many villages have a hedge wizard, and once they have one the training of others is easier.