All blades perish ...

[Atreyu_Hibiki]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I'm afraid the GM has his work cut out for him. Tolkienite sociology, history, and especially linguistics tends to be plausible-given-the-circumstances-imagined. Tolkienite magic is mystical and no D & D like rules were made for it. Perhaps the best way out is for the GM to make his own rules, and have Gandalf or whatever wise loremaster, give vague hints, rather then telling the players what the rules are.

Until Tolkien, all fantasy stories were called Fairy Tales. These generally did not require a large amount of internal consistency save what was required to make a good story. Magic was never explained, it just usually worked in the manner presented (i.e. in Oz, there is a lot of magic going around, but none of it was balanced against each other). Having a system for magic in a particular world wasn't generally worried about.

Tolkien changed that. He began by writing a somewhat more traditional Fairy Tale (The Hobbit) and following it up with the first Fantasy story (Lord of the Rings). Since then, most authors have attempted to limit magic in their stories by having some sort of a system of checks and balances. Tolkien's magic, though, still fell mostly under that of Fairy Tales: if the author says it works, then it works. No major attempts at how magic works. It just does, for whatever reason.

Just my opinion.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Atreyu_Hibiki

Until Tolkien, all fantasy stories were called Fairy Tales. These generally did not require a large amount of internal consistency save what was required to make a good story. Magic was never explained, it just usually worked in the manner presented (i.e. in Oz, there is a lot of magic going around, but none of it was balanced against each other). Having a system for magic in a particular world wasn't generally worried about.

Tolkien changed that. He began by writing a somewhat more traditional Fairy Tale (The Hobbit) and following it up with the first Fantasy story (Lord of the Rings). Since then, most authors have attempted to limit magic in their stories by having some sort of a system of checks and balances. Tolkien's magic, though, still fell mostly under that of Fairy Tales: if the author says it works, then it works. No major attempts at how magic works. It just does, for whatever reason.

Just my opinion.

_____________________________________
I suppose Amazon Indians, faced with computers would react the same way as hobbits did with elven magic. For instance, one time a missionary took one of his parishioners to an American supermarket. He was convinced that Americans were extravegantly genrerous people who maintained treasure-houses where vast supplies of food were given out for free-not understanding when the missionary used his credit card.
However I doubt that Tolkien meant his magic to be ultimatly understandable, though hidden from Hobbits in that manner. He meant it to be ultimatly mysterious. It wasn't arbitrary, in an Alice and Wonderland way, but neither was it systematic.
By the way there were tales before Tolkien that were not fantasy's in the sense of having a pseudohistory attached(a fairly recent literary device), but not fairy tales in the normal sense; a number of noted authors tried their hand at it. Well at the Worlds End, or Worm Ourobous for instance were examples of such in-between works.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Atreyu_Hibiki

Until Tolkien, all fantasy stories were called Fairy Tales. These generally did not require a large amount of internal consistency save what was required to make a good story. Magic was never explained, it just usually worked in the manner presented (i.e. in Oz, there is a lot of magic going around, but none of it was balanced against each other). Having a system for magic in a particular world wasn't generally worried about.

Tolkien changed that. <snip>

That's an oversimplification, I'm afraid. To take just two examples, Robert E. Howard died in 1936, and nobody who had read it would have called his work fairy tales. de Camp and Fletcher Pratt published their "incomplete enchanter" stories, classic rational fantasy with magic following strict rules, starting in 1940-1. See L. Sprague de Camp's "Literary Swordsmen and Sorcerers: The Makers of Heroic Fantasy" (1976) for a discussion of the history of fantasy to about 1950.

I agree with you and Jason that Tolkien's magic was written by feel without a prior set of principles and limits being established. I gave up on designing this ability earlier because the full version, with strong blades burning away over time, cost too many points and required too much fiddling. If anybody does manage to get it to work, my hat's off to them.

[Brandy]

I don't think you need to use an innate attack to make this one. . .isn't this legal?

Create Small Category (Forged Metals), Destruction Only (+0%), Reduced Fatigue Cost -2 (+40%), Aura (+80%), Magic (-10%), Always On (+0%), Cosmic (No Die Roll Required) (+100%).

Level one of this power (base cost [10]) would effect forged metals of up to 10 lbs in weight and cost [31] points.

[Fnordianslip]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I don't think you need to use an innate attack to make this one. . .isn't this legal?

Create Small Category (Forged Metals), Destruction Only (+0%), Reduced Fatigue Cost -2 (+40%), Aura (+80%), Magic (-10%), Always On (+0%), Cosmic (No Die Roll Required) (+100%).

Level one of this power (base cost [10]) would effect forged metals of up to 10 lbs in weight and cost [31] points.

Wow! That's a truly sick combo. I LIKE IT! Mind if I fiddle around with it a bit to make it fit in the fifty point abilities thread? Also, this would make paying tolls using change a real pain in the butt!

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

_____________________________________
I suppose Amazon Indians, faced with computers would react the same way as hobbits did with elven magic. For instance, one time a missionary took one of his parishioners to an American supermarket. He was convinced that Americans were extravegantly genrerous people who maintained treasure-houses where vast supplies of food were given out for free-not understanding when the missionary used his credit card.
However I doubt that Tolkien meant his magic to be ultimatly understandable, though hidden from Hobbits in that manner. He meant it to be ultimatly mysterious. It wasn't arbitrary, in an Alice and Wonderland way, but neither was it systematic.
By the way there were tales before Tolkien that were not fantasy's in the sense of having a pseudohistory attached(a fairly recent literary device), but not fairy tales in the normal sense; a number of noted authors tried their hand at it. Well at the Worlds End, or Worm Ourobous for instance were examples of such in-between works.

___________________________________
It could be said that tolkienite magic is to the user more an extention of the mind, like moving fingers is to a mortal. It would work for elves and maia. It doesn't quite explain numenorean swords or dwarve runes as numenoreans are mortal and so are dwarves in a different way. In that you just have to fall back on the "can't explain everything."

[Mgellis]

How about just...

Destiny ("No Man Can Kill Me," Cosmic, Includes weapons bursting into flame or shattering when they hit you, etc., +50%) [15].

Mark