Standard magic - effect on gameworld, playability etc.

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by fifiste

So if I try to run some not too deeply thought out pseudo-medieval renaissance gameworld for that's so common in pen and paper and computerized RPG-s. I'm thinking of more DF or PC game style slashy game if you get my drift - hard to put down but probably you know where I'm directed. Something not too much of a brain teaser and high intrigue politics and economics etc. :D.
Considering that I am not going to hand-wave totally everything, and that there might be munchkins or just curious people in the gaming group ...
What effects will standard magic have on a game-world .. when I say that take the characters/magic standard colleges and spell list and just use it. What are the spells or effects to keep an eye on that could wreck havoc on suspension of disbelief for example. Or something ridiculous like the - make 10ft poles out of ladders= profit in that other game.
What would happen if I'd said well have this magic book and all the spells are there just use the prereq chains etc like they are I do not care as long as its in the book. What would the world look when let's say there are 1% people with magery 0, and 0.1% with magery 1 etc.

If you go with the changes in the DF book (Mainly changing the cost of Enlarge Spells, and changing the Create Spells to only last a day rather than being permanent), then you shouldn't have any problems.

A lot of the more abusive stuff takes a while to figure out. Most players struggle with GURPS Magic at first because there are so many options. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about Magic changing things too differently in the game.

IMO the biggest thing that gets overlooked is Ceremonial Magic. If a Mage has 100 assistants they can generate 100 energy for some big spells. (These assistants can be anybody, just people holding candles, chanting, etc). It might be something to keep in mind if you want mages to have a big effect in armies, battles, etc.

One thing that would makes things easier for you is to suggest to your mages to really focus on one type of magic. Most starting mages try to do to much and end up being ineffectual. The best starting mages are ones that focus on one college or theme, learn that type of magic and get good with it. I think for starting players, Elemental Mages, Druids (Mages using the Animal College), and Illusionists are some of the most effective. You get a lot of bang for your buck with those spells.

I think in GURPS, Magic can have as big or as little effect on your world as you like. If you want a Highly Magical setting where every city is connected my magical Gates, Castle Walls are built with Magic to dwarf the pyramids of Egypt, and any wound is easily treatable. There is definitely room in GURPS to do that. If you prefer a game where magic is low key, and doesn't change day to day life too much, that's reason able too.

Hell, I'm sure if some mage started creating good stone left and right, putting the Stone Masons Union Workers out of work, they'd try to lynch him at least once.

A really good way to regulate things is how magic is regulated in Wheel of Time. People get sick of Mages screwing with things, and laws are put in place to stop shenanigans (or screwing up the economy).

In my current game, Summoning, and any magic that contacts another plane, creature, or opens any type of gate to anywhere, is highly illegal. There are people who actively search for such magic, and if they detect it, they come down on it hard.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Snaps

IMO the biggest thing that gets overlooked is Ceremonial Magic. If a Mage has 100 assistants they can generate 100 energy for some big spells. (These assistants can be anybody, just people holding candles, chanting, etc). It might be something to keep in mind if you want mages to have a big effect in armies, battles, etc.

That reminds me of another 3e check on that; according to GURPS Magic p15 (3e), spectators must have both a sincere belief and desire for the spell to succeed; no skeptics that don't believe in magic (probably not an issue), and no one that is apathetic. It expressly states you can't just hire a crowd off the street. If someone is downright hostile and wants the spell to fail, instead of contributing one Energy, they subtract five from what the spectators contribute. Ceremonial magic in 3e is also vulnerable to harassment, since it is a large group that must focus.

Originally Posted by Snaps

A really good way to regulate things is how magic is regulated in Wheel of Time. People get sick of Mages screwing with things, and laws are put in place to stop shenanigans (or screwing up the economy).

In my current game, Summoning, and any magic that contacts another plane, creature, or opens any type of gate to anywhere, is highly illegal. There are people who actively search for such magic, and if they detect it, they come down on it hard.

This is why, thought tedious, assigning a LC to each spell can be very, very useful. Not only can it directly block problem spells by pointing out something as dangerous as a nuke is highly illegal and controlled... prerequisites mean sometimes it will be indirect. As long as Legality Class is assigned in a sensible manner, it is good world building and not railroading the players.

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by Otaku

That reminds me of another 3e check on that; according to GURPS Magic p15 (3e), spectators must have both a sincere belief and desire for the spell to succeed; no skeptics that don't believe in magic (probably not an issue), and no one that is apathetic. It expressly states you can't just hire a crowd off the street. If someone is downright hostile and wants the spell to fail, instead of contributing one Energy, they subtract five from what the spectators contribute.

Ceremonial magic in 3e is also vulnerable to harassment, since it is a large group that must focus.

I think this is all still true in 4e, but you have to admit it's not a huge limitation. It might make it hard to do a big spell on the fly, using a crowd of people you don't really know. But if you were hiring people to act as assistants, or were in an army and their helping you would save their own lives and those of their fellow countrymen, I don't see this being hard. (Still, whenever I or NPC's I'm running use Ceremonial Magic, I always include extras to help offset the cost of anyone in a bad mood that day).

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Snaps

I think this is all still true in 4e, but you have to admit it's not a huge limitation. It might make it hard to do a big spell on the fly, using a crowd of people you don't really know. But if you were hiring people to act as assistants, or were in an army and their helping you would save their own lives and those of their fellow countrymen, I don't see this being hard. (Still, whenever I or NPC's I'm running use Ceremonial Magic, I always include extras to help offset the cost of anyone in a bad mood that day).

It depends upon the GM and the players... which is true of most limitations. I won't call it "huge", but I believe it is "adequate.

You are limited to 100 assistants, so I don't think you are supposed to be able to "include extras" - it never came up in any of my games (players weren't into Ceremonial Magic), but I wouldn't have allowed it (if RAW says otherwise, I should probably reconsider). If you just meant that you only act like you have 50 spectators when you really hired 100, that's just good player knowledge!

So with the "100 limit" firmly in place, we must remember that someone apathetic contributes no Energy... but someone opposed (like enemy sympathizers or spies) subtract five Energy. So it takes five "good" to break even with one "bad". If you get a group of 100 and 10 are apathetic and five are actually opposed, that means you'd only get 65 Energy... and as I read the rules, I don't think the mage gets to know unless said spectators are open about it: the mage just casts the spell and finds it more taxing!

This can be pretty dangerous - enough spies and you can trick a mage into killing himself casting using the Ceremonial Rules! That's before remembering that to stop a Ceremonially cast spell is like a regular spell but with more time (as at least in 3e, time to cast is multiplied by 10. Thus even a fast spell that only takes one second takes 10 seconds. If the casting mage is killed, the spell of course fails. If using a circle of mages (the secret to really big Energy), if the circle is broken, the spell fails. Injuries to any mage is counted as to the caster (for the purposes of casting spells - e.g. he'll get appropriate penalties). If any linked mage is killed or stunned, everyone in the circle is automatically mentally stunned.

There is a reason ceremonies are supposed to occur in well guarded areas, like remote temples. Even with guards and similar protection, battlefield Ceremonial Magic basically requires an enemy that is already significantly weaker than you.

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by Otaku

This is why, thought tedious, assigning a LC to each spell can be very, very useful. Not only can it directly block problem spells by pointing out something as dangerous as a nuke is highly illegal and controlled... prerequisites mean sometimes it will be indirect. As long as Legality Class is assigned in a sensible manner, it is good world building and not railroading the players.

Personally, I'd think that was too much work. You can make simple laws that cover a lot of ground:

"Make no weapon with which one man may kill another."
"Never to use Magic as a weapon except against Demons or undead, or in the last extreme defense of the mages life, the life of his companions, or another mage"
"Never use Magic to do the work of a Man."
"Thou shalt not kill by use of magic."
"Thou shalt not transform others."
"Thou shalt not invade the mind of another."
"Thou shalt not enthrall another."
"Thou shalt not reach beyond the Borders of Life."
"Thou shalt not swim against the Currents of Time."
"Thou shalt not seek beyond the Outer Gates."

Are all good examples. But I think you can easily get as specific as you want. If you want to say that Magic can't be used to screw with the Economy, just say that's the Law.

Originally Posted by Otaku

So with the "100 limit" firmly in place, we must remember that someone apathetic contributes no Energy... but someone opposed (like enemy sympathizers or spies) subtract five Energy. So it takes five "good" to break even with one "bad". If you get a group of 100 and 10 are apathetic and five are actually opposed, that means you'd only get 65 Energy... and as I read the rules, I don't think the mage gets to know unless said spectators are open about it: the mage just casts the spell and finds it more taxing!

I think if you're going to War, and 1 mage would be such an asset, he'd have a hand picked group of people to work as his assistants. This would probably be a dream job for most commoners/unskilled workers. That 1 Mage and 100 assistants are probably going to be the most important people in your army. Not to mention that if this is during a war, and you are opposing a casting, that can be considered treason and you'd probably get your head chopped off (not to mention killed from losing the battle).

A good practice would be to have your caster and his assistants behind the lines, working unobserved in a tent, etc. But see below as well.

There is a reason ceremonies are supposed to occur in well guarded areas, like remote temples. Even with guards and similar protection, battlefield Ceremonial Magic basically requires an enemy that is already significantly weaker than you.

A good Battlefield Mage can perform his ceremonies in well guarded areas, or even back at home. With things like Delay, its possible for a Mage to load up on Ceremonial Spells (Sort of like a D&D Mages does) then go off to battle and unload them as needed on the enemy.

The group can remain behind to maintain the spells while he travels. Members can come and go as long as the Ceremony remains uninterrupted, maintaining spells indefinitely.

With Telecast, he doesn't even need to leave his Tower...

[Brass Bricks]

In my Aestas fantasy campaign, I had an issue with PC's wanting to blast and mindrape in the center of town, with impunity. So, I dug up some old Ars Magica stuff, combined it with the rules for legality codes and magic, and created a set of laws, a historical reason for them, and an enforcement system. It seemed to work.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Brass Bricks

In my Aestas fantasy campaign, I had an issue with PC's wanting to blast and mindrape in the center of town, with impunity. So, I dug up some old Ars Magica stuff, combined it with the rules for legality codes and magic, and created a set of laws, a historical reason for them, and an enforcement system. It seemed to work.

My solution is to note that the PCs are unlikely to be the first people who thought of this, and thereby there is a reason it isn't done (or that it is done but the doing of is the reason why the world is the way it is). Determining the reason is a setting-building element.

[Otaku]

Another reminder; I am going with 3e rules because that is what I currently have in front of me. If 4e works differently, then one might want to consider reverting back to these rules, as they seem fairly balanced. Also, if some text isn't quoted, I wasn't trying to ignore it or alter the tone of your post - I just thought it was safe to leave out as this will be long-winded enough as is.

Originally Posted by Snaps

Personally, I'd think that was too much work. You can make simple laws that cover a lot of ground...

Yes... but some you gave seemed to harsh; great for evil PCs that are living weapons and in the service of a despot or just not well thought out. If that was intentional, good job; I mean that, as it is sadly all too realistic.

Originally Posted by Snaps

"Thou shalt not transform others."
"Thou shalt not invade the mind of another."
"Thou shalt not enthrall another."
"Thou shalt not reach beyond the Borders of Life."
"Thou shalt not swim against the Currents of Time."
"Thou shalt not seek beyond the Outer Gates."

Are all good examples. But I think you can easily get as specific as you want. If you want to say that Magic can't be used to screw with the Economy, just say that's the Law.

The last few seem much more well thought out, again assuming you weren't intentionally messing with your players by having overreaching laws with those first few. I can still see some objecting to some of the above, but they aren't as outright.

Still, I think you're missing the point of Legality Class. Even assigning an LC to each spell doesn't require literally labeling each spell; guidelines can be used to classify LC as well. You can even just start with how LC is assigned to real world weaponry: in 3e it was on Basic Set p249. Combine those with a few of your rules and you effectively assign an LC to each spell... while having GM's Prerogative to adjust as the game goes on. LC also doesn't automatically prevent someone from having a specific spell, but it gives the player a heads up that using a spell abusively is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Snaps

I think if you're going to War, and 1 mage would be such an asset, he'd have a hand picked group of people to work as his assistants. This would probably be a dream job for most commoners/unskilled workers.

If you're going to a war the people believe in and they like both the government and the mage in question, it would be much easier. That should only happen when the story justifies it; even a "just war" is a scary thing, and commoners and unskilled workers aren't part of the main army for a reason. You also are expending resources to reliably select spectators: people that are literally dirt poor and are considered property of the king, attached to the land like common serfs are probably pretty easy to bribe... as are many royals that think this is the best shot at the crown.

Now you've got to feed, transport, protect, and coordinate these people.

Originally Posted by Snaps

That 1 Mage and 100 assistants are probably going to be the most important people in your army. Not to mention that if this is during a war, and you are opposing a casting, that can be considered treason and you'd probably get your head chopped off (not to mention killed from losing the battle).

Nothing I read indicates it is obvious who is apathetic or opposed to the casting. Being in a war at all is "likely to get you killed", but if ceremonial casting is a regular thing in war, so will be attempts at disrupting it. It isn't like historical traitors don't exist. Also, if you insist that the Duke, who came here himself to help you win the battle for his cousin the King, and his entourage might secretly be traitors when you have no proof... good luck getting permission to try and procure that proof.

Of course, this assumes an unsuccessful or subtle betrayal. An overt one won't matter - the traitor just kills the mage. He might be willing to die... or the other army might have troops ready to swoop in and help him. A subtle but successful betrayal means as the opposing army comes over because your mage is too weak as he had to supply extra energy himself for the spell (or the badly needed spell wasn't cast at all due to not enough energy), he reveals himself as the mage and company are being overrun.

Originally Posted by Snaps

A good Battlefield Mage can perform his ceremonies in well guarded areas, or even back at home. With things like Delay, its possible for a Mage to load up on Ceremonial Spells (Sort of like a D&D Mages does) then go off to battle and unload them as needed on the enemy.

The group can remain behind to maintain the spells while he travels. Members can come and go as long as the Ceremony remains uninterrupted, maintaining spells indefinitely.

With Telecast, he doesn't even need to leave his Tower...

Time to remember we aren't arguing that Ceremonial Magic isn't powerful; it is supposed to be because it requires more effort and coordination. We are discussing if it is too easy to abuse and think of everything you have to add to make it "abusive".

I started creating a Wall Of Text response outlining all the 3e penalties and requirements for your plan... but I'll wait for someone to ask for them, because this comment is long enough already. Both options you gave have enough skill penalties that you're going to need to trade Energy for Skill... even simple stuff is probably going to require double the Energy to compensate. I will mention an important 3e rule; Ceremonial Magic always fails on a roll of 16 or higher, with 17 and 18 always being critical failures.

If a player wanted to run such a mage in my campaigns and I was allowing regular and ceremonial magic, I'd allow it... but I'd make it clear that if they want something to work reliably, I'd better see points spent on it. Maybe its as a Patron, or Ally Group, or taking your chances on the dice rolls with appropriate administrative skills, Wealth, and Charisma to maintain a loyal following, but if you don't as GM I would take it as my duty to balance the game accordingly; use a trick over and over again, and its supposed to stop being a surprise and your opponent's are supposed to develop counters.

TL;DR: The GM should be the GM and set the game world up appropriately, which is what a lot of the discussion really boils down to... and if the 4e rules are as easily abused as you say, might as well revert back to the 3e for Ceremonial Magic because most of the "abuses" implied aren't: Ceremonial Magic seems meant to work that way and has many intricate concerns far too often glossed over.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Yes... but some you gave seemed to harsh; great for evil PCs that are living weapons and in the service of a despot or just not well thought out.

Try the rules of the Order of the Robe and Staff instead.

"You shall not attempt to disguise who you are and shall wear the Robe and carry the Staff that are Symbols of your Office whenever you are in public.

You shall not cast Spells upon others without their permission except in cases of immediate self-defense. All claims of self-defense shall be adjudged by the Order using Spells of Truth. Attempting to resist such Spells shall be taken as Proof of Guilt.

You shall not attempt to cast any Spell forbidden by the Order.

You shall not attempt to cast any Spell forbidden by the Authorities of the land you currently occupy."

There, the first two rules are an attempt to reduce paranoia in regards to Mages. The last two are simply practical matters. You do need two lists of forbidden spells but the second list may change based on geography. The Order's list is probably much the longer anyway.

As to why do this instead of giving each spell an LC? There are 800 spells not counting TL variants. You really do need to come up with general principles first rather than reviewing each spell on an ad hoc basis. After you come up with your general principles you probably don't need to review each spell individually.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Snaps

If you go with the changes in the DF book (Mainly changing the cost of Enlarge Spells, and changing the Create Spells to only last a day rather than being permanent), then you shouldn't have any problems.

Doesn't DF also declare a lot of spells, besides the ones you mention, to be "NPC only"?