Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sunday]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10302-I-Hate-Magic

I wouldn't mind a Transfer Wounds spell/ritual in DF, so long as you could transfer said wounds to anyone. Like a bound and gagged bandit, for instance.

Hmmm. DF actually does what was outlined in the article pretty well (in adventure mode, at least): getting to be a vampire, versus a necromancer, versus a husk, versus a werebeast.

If DF just added in a way to conduct rituals, a way to gain the attention of a God, and a few more ways to get powers, it would have the foundation of a pretty sweet magic system.

[mastahcheese]

Also, certain races could be better at certain magic Dwarves earth, Humans air, Elves plant, goblins Fire, etc.

Or it could be based on spheres.

[RenoFox]

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10302-I-Hate-Magic

I wouldn't mind a Transfer Wounds spell/ritual in DF, so long as you could transfer said wounds to anyone. Like a bound and gagged bandit, for instance.

That article explains EXACTLY why I tend to hate magic. The mana-battery, the easy access to supernatural powers, and most of all the fact that there's nothing mystical about it. The midichlorian comparison of commercialized magic is really spot-on.

The Cthulhu-mythos magic is the kind I love. You're not limited by how many spells you can cast, you shouldn't be messing with Things That Should Not Be in the first place.

About flashy vs non-flashy magic, I think materializing fire or water is already flashy to the point that any kind of visual effect would be completely insignificant. What I understand as non-flashy magic is things like runes or talismans of protection, where it is entirely reasonable to ask someone "Do you believe in that stuff?". Unreal World does this kind of low-magic perfectly; only the random number god knows whether or not you would have succeeded in starting a fire without performing the ritual first.

[Neonivek]

I on the other hand have no qualms with any of those representations of magic simply because there is no one way to do it.

most of all the fact that there's nothing mystical about it

Mostly because of this. There was never anything mystical about magic.

The very first magic that has ever existed in real life... worked not because of any magic mumbo jumbo, didn't work because of any ritualistic strength, didn't work because of gods or spirits, and didn't work because of any other reason then... That is how the world works. (Why does hitting a picture of a tiger mean that you will hit the tiger? because that picture IS the tiger. It's spirit isn't in the picture, it isn't fate... The tiger is the picture)

Which is kind of the thing. This is more that people want to enforce their idea of magic at behest of all others, that other kinds of magic are somehow "not magic".

But let me break them down:

The mana-battery

There are three sources for this and none of it actually comes from videogames interestingly enough.
1) Laylines: The idea of mystical energy naturally flowing from mystical lines throughout the earth. Essentially giving magic substance that can be affected and contained.
2) The idea that the human body itself contains and stores spiritual and physical energy: Whether it be a Soul or simply explanation of how the human body works done in mystical terms. The idea that the human body itself has a mystical element is a rather old idea, and that deficiencies and even build ups are possible.
3) Everything is magic: As old as dirt, everything has this "mystic quality" that goes in a cycle.

the easy access to supernatural powers

Ahh now this is the most interesting of the complaints. Since historically supernatural powers wasn't "rare" it was all inclusive. Everyone had access to magic... period.

However what is more important is what created this idea that magic is a rare and unusual gift? Psychic powers! It was the psychic period in modern mythology that gave people the idea that magic must be a rare and difficult to obtain and that all fiction must adhere to that.

most of all the fact that there's nothing mystical about it

Mostly because there IS nothing "mystical" about magic. When you say mystical you obviously are referring to Lord of the Rings where magic was hardly ever done.

Mystical in this case is being used in a very cookie cutter fashion. UNLESS it is that type of magic, it isn't magic. Which to say in other words.

Of course there is nothing magical about magic that doesn't fit your definition of what magic is.

The midichlorian comparison of commercialized magic is really spot-on

Why no it doesn't. In this case it was someone taking an established form of magic and creating a "logical explanation" where there didn't need to be any, and coming up with something that didn't make sense. It actually brought up more questions.

Mind you midichlorians are only the thing that allows the connection to the force. People who are "strong with the force" but are not Jedi do not have midichlorians. They aren't the source of the force itself but rather the bridge that allows one to connect to it.

The Cthulhu-mythos magic is the kind I love. You're not limited by how many spells you can cast, you shouldn't be messing with Things That Should Not Be in the first place

That isn't exactly true, and by that I mean it isn't true at all... It had "powered magic" and it had safe magic as well.

In many ways magic wasn't mystical in this because it didn't work because of "magic" it worked because of the laws of physics.

---

Elements and magic

Personally I don't think the "elements of magic" really need the species differentiation. Unless a race is inherently magical, they should have absolutely no flavor when it comes to magic since they have nothing to really color it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think there's a bit of confusion on what you mean by "spells". I thought you meant that specific, simple-to-learn, and so forth things to do with magic don't fit. I was thinking you meant spells like "Raise Dead," "Fireball," "Create Water," etc, didn't fit.

I agree that "flashy" magic wouldn't fit with DF most of the time, but it IMHO should happen sometimes. Maybe in "high magic" worlds, whatever that comes to mean.

Or perhaps...
Instead of being just a generic mana system...
Mana could be a magical (duh) energy in the air, which creates various anomalies when in high concentration (yeah, it's up in the air, literally). Some manage to control its flow and thus cast spells, either directly or via items.
If you cast a lot of spells in a quick succesion the area will eventually run out of mana, and you won't be able to cast anything in that place for some time - either that, or the spells will have much weaker effects (to the point when you will literally just fire sparks, water drops and mere blows of wind instead of hellfires, tsunamis and tornadoes)
Good/evil areas are filled with much more mana, therefore husks and unicorns.
Average mana concentration can be set when creating a world, leading to magic-filled or completely magicless worlds.
...I think I nailed it.

Lore's nice, but why does that fit well? It certainly shouldn't be the only possible system.

As for the question of 'flashy magic', I know not everyone thinks it fits

Honestly judging by HOW people object to flashy magic. It get more of an impression that they are objecting to a very specific form of it.
Or rather people are objecting to the idea of Final Fantasy Black Mages.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Care to explain?

Honestly the community is weird. We actually got a thread about how mages should have disadvantages based on weapon and armor because "magic is too powerful". Yet these are the same people who object to 'flashy magic'.

Why are those in any way contradictory? They seem like the same complaint.

So honestly when it comes to magic and the dwarf fortress community... Just ignore them, they don't say what they mean.

-1


One problem with these magic discussions is that each is arguing for their own "image" of DF...and these images aren't much alike.
Some of us imagine a DF like D&D or something, where magic shapes the world. Some of us imagine a DF where magic is rare and typically the opposition, which can and often must be faced with little but steel and bravery. Some imagine it somewhere in the middle.
I imagine a wide array of possibilities, modifiable in advanced or to a lesser extent basic worldgen, which span the whole range but tend towards the "Low Fantasy" end of things. That just "feels" like Dwarf Fortress to me.

[Neonivek]

Ok I will explain myself and bend the negativity rule since I am being asked.

The issue is mostly that a lot of people when they argue against flashy magic already have a very firm idea of what it is already. They basically imagine final fantasy magic with MP, Spells that destroy entire groups, and large destruction with very little wiggle room as to the interpretation.

This wouldn't be so much of a problem except that eventually all conversations boil down to all flashy magic being interpreted as such.

I ignore them because they aren't talking about any flashy magic people actually talk about, except for wizard entities but they are people vying for magical godhood so they don't count, they are talking about a specific interpretation of it that doesn't apply.

Why are those in any way contradictory? They seem like the same complaint

Because they are already coming up with the conclusion of flashy magic before it is reached. When you are creating magic you can easily set the tone or power before it ever gets to the powerful point.

I have said that the best way to balance a fireball, for example, is just to handle it realistically. A Fireball wouldn't harm a shield or the person on the other side, it can be dodged, and even if you were to be struck by it you can recover. When you compare it to a arrow or crossbow bolt the balance isn't so questionable and when you compare it to bows and crossbows made of superior materials or that are artifacts (when they are fixed) or even that are blessed or magical themselves... the fireball starts seeming a lot less impressive without ever once questioning its worth as magic.

The contradiction comes from the fact that they are willing to give magic artificial limitations to make it weaker and yet in their own head they made magic artificially more powerful. They are trying to balance a system that isn't broken yet.

It is what makes it so difficult to take people seriously. Flashy magic is only magic that has a visual manifestation and yet somehow the image of it is so much more when it doesn't have to be. It makes conversation impossible when all flashy magic MUST be overpowered.

This is all without going into what is wrong with the "overpowered wizard" balances.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ok I will explain myself and bend the negativity rule since I am being asked.
The issue is mostly that a lot of people when they argue against flashy magic already have a very firm idea of what it is already. They basically imagine final fantasy magic with MP, Spells that destroy entire groups, and large destruction with very little wiggle room as to the interpretation.
This wouldn't be so much of a problem except that eventually all conversations boil down to all flashy magic being interpreted as such.
I ignore them because they aren't talking about any flashy magic people actually talk about, except for wizard entities but they are people vying for magical godhood so they don't count, they are talking about a specific interpretation of it that doesn't apply.

So...you ignore just about everyone because a lot of people misuse words?

Why are those in any way contradictory? They seem like the same complaint

Because they are already coming up with the conclusion of flashy magic before it is reached. When you are creating magic you can easily set the tone or power before it ever gets to the powerful point.

Precisely. When they say that, they're saying they don't want magic to reach that point.

I have said that the best way to balance a fireball, for example, is just to handle it realistically. A Fireball wouldn't harm a shield or the person on the other side, it can be dodged, and even if you were to be struck by it you can recover. When you compare it to a arrow or crossbow bolt the balance isn't so questionable and when you compare it to bows and crossbows made of superior materials or that are artifacts (when they are fixed) or even that are blessed or magical themselves... the fireball starts seeming a lot less impressive without ever once questioning its worth as magic.

I don't think you're really addressing the most fundamental concern with this, namely that fireballs shouldn't be "just" another ranged weapon.

The contradiction comes from the fact that they are willing to give magic artificial limitations to make it weaker and yet in their own head they made magic artificially more powerful. They are trying to balance a system that isn't broken yet.

No, they're giving suggestions on how to keep the system from being broken.

It is what makes it so difficult to take people seriously. Flashy magic is only magic that has a visual manifestation and yet somehow the image of it is so much more when it doesn't have to be. It makes conversation impossible when all flashy magic MUST be overpowered.

I don't think people have a big problem with "overpowered" magic, although of course they don't want magic to be overpowering the playstyle. Their concerns are more with how the magic "fits into" how DF "should" feel.

[Soadreqm]

The very first magic that has ever existed in real life... worked not because of any magic mumbo jumbo, didn't work because of any ritualistic strength, didn't work because of gods or spirits, and didn't work because of any other reason then... That is how the world works. (Why does hitting a picture of a tiger mean that you will hit the tiger? because that picture IS the tiger. It's spirit isn't in the picture, it isn't fate... The tiger is the picture)

I'm not sure what you're saying with this. Are you claiming that early humans, with their cave paintings and little statues of fat women, didn't have any kind of explanation for how their shit worked? I'm no cultural anthropologist, but that seems kind of far-fetched. Where are you getting this?

the easy access to supernatural powers

Ahh now this is the most interesting of the complaints. Since historically supernatural powers wasn't "rare" it was all inclusive. Everyone had access to magic... period.

However what is more important is what created this idea that magic is a rare and unusual gift? Psychic powers! It was the psychic period in modern mythology that gave people the idea that magic must be a rare and difficult to obtain and that all fiction must adhere to that.

Which history is this? Merlin's dad, for instance, was a demon. He was special. Capable of things beyond mortal ken. This was also the operating principle behind the demons themselves. You can't become an incubus. Neither can you become an elf or a djinn or a god of the Greek pantheon. Is there some specific period you're thinking of?

most of all the fact that there's nothing mystical about it

Mostly because there IS nothing "mystical" about magic. When you say mystical you obviously are referring to Lord of the Rings where magic was hardly ever done.

Mystical in this case is being used in a very cookie cutter fashion. UNLESS it is that type of magic, it isn't magic. Which to say in other words.

Of course there is nothing magical about magic that doesn't fit your definition of what magic is.

Well, my definition of "magic" is basically "something mystical". It's magic if you don't know how it works. :| If the people in the setting think of tossing fireballs and seeing the future the same way they think of archery or painting - skills that anyone can learn with a little effort - then I don't see any reason to call them magic. So, yeah. What's your definition of magic?

[RenoFox]

Exactly what GWG said. It's not about power - a ball of flaming gas/liquid/whatever fireballs are made of has every right to be powerful or not - it's about the setting. DF is a gruesomely down-to-earth setting where wounds get infections and internal injuries require extensive surgeries, and being able to just wish everything better would cheapen the entire experience.

The mana-battery

There are three sources for this and none of it actually comes from videogames interestingly enough.
1) Laylines: The idea of mystical energy naturally flowing from mystical lines throughout the earth. Essentially giving magic substance that can be affected and contained.
2) The idea that the human body itself contains and stores spiritual and physical energy: Whether it be a Soul or simply explanation of how the human body works done in mystical terms. The idea that the human body itself has a mystical element is a rather old idea, and that deficiencies and even build ups are possible.
3) Everything is magic: As old as dirt, everything has this "mystic quality" that goes in a cycle.

[/quote]

These are good ideas, and I'd like to see something like them used if magic gets implemented. What I meant with "mana battery" is the tendency of games to measure mana as MP, which for all purposes works like a rechargeable battery with very measurable degree of power in it. Abstract, supernatural powers should not be measurable as simply as contents of a bottle.

the easy access to supernatural powers

Ahh now this is the most interesting of the complaints. Since historically supernatural powers wasn't "rare" it was all inclusive. Everyone had access to magic... period.

Sure, everyone could put flowers under their bed on summer solstice, pick up four-leaf clovers or drop molten tin into a bucket of water. The point is that if everyone could summon a bucket of water there would be no use for wells, if they could cast fireballs there would be no need for tinder and so on. A real high-fantasy world would be so different from any remotely realistic world that we can hardly imagine it. Now I'd feel like writing a story about a world where all physical activity is inconsequential compared to abstract powers everyone has at their fingertips.

most of all the fact that there's nothing mystical about it

Mostly because there IS nothing "mystical" about magic. When you say mystical you obviously are referring to Lord of the Rings where magic was hardly ever done.

Mystical in this case is being used in a very cookie cutter fashion. UNLESS it is that type of magic, it isn't magic. Which to say in other words.

Of course there is nothing magical about magic that doesn't fit your definition of what magic is.

Non-mystical magic? I think there's a semantic misunderstanding somewhere. What I meant is that choosing to cast lightning from your hands should not be as casual, or practically more casual than shooting a bow. I know Full Metal Alchemist referred to alchemy as science, but I consider any powers magical when they can't be explained with the science of our world.

The midichlorian comparison of commercialized magic is really spot-on

Why no it doesn't. In this case it was someone taking an established form of magic and creating a "logical explanation" where there didn't need to be any, and coming up with something that didn't make sense. It actually brought up more questions.

Mind you midichlorians are only the thing that allows the connection to the force. People who are "strong with the force" but are not Jedi do not have midichlorians. They aren't the source of the force itself but rather the bridge that allows one to connect to it.

I meant that as a reference to how simply something so extraordinary is presented in games. Magic in high-fantasy vs low-fantasy games is like spaceflight in StarFlight vs Kerbal Space Program, simplified down to a number. Personally I think that is as lazy as saying you can shoot lasers with the power of science.


After reading your recent posts, I noticed that there are quite a lot of semantics about words like magic, mystical, supernatural and so on. Could you explain what you mean with them? Do you believe there is magic in this world?

[Neonivek]

As with the negative free May, I can only answer questions and have to avoid being negative... so

I'm not sure what you're saying with this. Are you claiming that early humans, with their cave paintings and little statues of fat women, didn't have any kind of explanation for how their shit worked? I'm no cultural anthropologist, but that seems kind of far-fetched. Where are you getting this?

It isn't that they had no explanation but it is that the explanation was less "because magic" and more "because that is just how things work". The picture of the tiger 'was' the tiger.

Which history is this?

Human history. Where powers were either taught or that everyone learned them. The idea of magic being exclusive was rather uncommon to my recollection.

It was easy to manipulate luck, events, or even people with magic.

Merlin's dad, for instance

That is fiction that is different.

What's your definition of magic?

Skill, knowledge, and ability based upon an abstract application of forces or what would be considered so today.

Or Divine powers or that of "magic creatures". I am rather loose with my definition mostly because magic is a very loose idea. The strict terms come from specific collections of sources but one can easily step outside them to see that others go by entirely different sets.

Sure, everyone could put flowers under their bed on summer solstice, pick up four-leaf clovers or drop molten tin into a bucket of water. The point is that if everyone could summon a bucket of water there would be no use for wells, if they could cast fireballs there would be no need for tinder and so on. A real high-fantasy world would be so different from any remotely realistic world that we can hardly imagine it. Now I'd feel like writing a story about a world where all physical activity is inconsequential compared to abstract powers everyone has at their fingertips

It is important to separate "Easy access" with "Easy access"

You see when you say easy access you are thinking about "Always have access" or "Can read a book and magic". When learning magic is like a university course, then it becomes more difficult but is still "Easy access" in that there is a jump on point.

My argument was against the idea of creating barriers to magic based on chance or on incredibly arduous tasks (beating down a dragon). There are ways to have easy access to magic without having excessive access to magic.

Non-mystical magic? I think there's a semantic misunderstanding somewhere

I was basically there calling you out and saying that of course most magic isn't mystical when the definition to be mystical is very limited to one subset of magic.

I noticed that there are quite a lot of semantics about words like magic, mystical, supernatural and so on. Could you explain what you mean with them? Do you believe there is magic in this world?

It is mostly that I am saying that magic hasn't already been written for Dwarf Fortress and that we can include many kinds and forms of magic and make them work within the setting without balancing them before they enter the gate.

Mostly I am trying to argue that magic doesn't need counter balances (Wizards can't use armor, magic must be really rare, magicians can't use weapons, magic has a chance to blow you up) it just needs to come out in a form that works with the game where any counter balances come from just the logic of magic rather then as a way to keep the game balanced.

The reason my arguments are very semantic based is because I am fighting against the preconception that magic systems much work on a very overpowered MP driven mode and thus must be balanced or it will destroy the game (or that magic must work in this incredibly underpowered or unusable form). That "flashy magic" must be this overpowered thing and thus everything must be done to try to balance it. My argument is that this idea of flashy magic is flawed in that it is only a single definition of what is a vast series of definitions and uses.

Basically that instead of trying to balance magic that doesn't exist. We should instead try to introduce balanced magic.

I've defined magic but basically I include all magic people come up with into the definition. Do I believe there is real magic in the world? Probably not.

As well you don't need to bring up logical explanations for what people "probably meant" because that isn't what they meant.

[Soadreqm]

It isn't that they had no explanation but it is that the explanation was less "because magic" and more "because that is just how things work". The picture of the tiger 'was' the tiger.

Okay. Then why did you say that the hunter-gatherers were free of magic mumbo-jumbo? That kind of sounds like magic mumbo-jumbo to me. Saying that a picture of a thing is, in some ways, the same as the real thing sounds hella mystical. And isn't that kind of stuff, things like harming a creature by harming an image of the creature, the exact kind of magic that the anti-flashy school is promoting? If you can curse an enemy by constructing a little doll of him, maybe tying some of his hair on it, and then prodding it with pins, that means you're making a serious effort rather than just spamming spells like some kind of larper. If you add the requirement that the doll be constructed in a particular way, you're also conducting obscure rituals. What kind of magic do you even want?

I think the explanation "because magic" mostly comes up in contexts where the magician knows a trick that anyone could learn and keeps it a secret. You know, like stage magic. This can really extend to any system of magic. Maybe magic is fakey-fake bullshit, and the "wizards" are just working miracles with chemistry and sleight of hand, and pretending to have godlike powers for prestige and money. Maybe anyone can cause fireballs to appear by twiddling their fingers in a particular way, but the only people who know that are the mad cultists of the Esoteric Order of Oglogoth. That's the "accessibility of magic" question again, and really more of an in-world social issue than a function of what is possible.

Which history is this?

Human history. Where powers were either taught or that everyone learned them. The idea of magic being exclusive was rather uncommon to my recollection.
It was easy to manipulate luck, events, or even people with magic.

Merlin's dad, for instance

That is fiction that is different.

Ah, I see. I didn't get what you were talking about since I mentally file those under "superstition" rather than "magic". I don't think the distinction between outright fiction and "serious" folklore is that important. Geoffrey of Monmouth's audience presumably found it plausible that someone whose dad was a demon would have superpowers. And with medieval Christianity in full swing, they presumably believed in demons. You could make dark pacts with the devil, but that was evil and certainly not something that everyone did. And before the demons and the witches, there were elves and such, who were also magic in a way that normal folk could not imitate. And shamans, who knew things that other people didn't, and could travel to the spirit world to talk to the ancestors or whatever. Those guys were mere humans, but still had a status above other humans, because they had special powers that others didn't. I think the idea of magic being exclusive was pretty damn pervasive.

What's your definition of magic?

Skill, knowledge, and ability based upon an abstract application of forces or what would be considered so today.

To clarify, I would assume that something like drawing a bowstring, while an application of forces, would be insufficiently abstract to be magic? Dunno, that doesn't sound that different from my definition. It's only magic if you can't see what's going on. Am I completely misreading this?

My argument was against the idea of creating barriers to magic based on chance or on incredibly arduous tasks (beating down a dragon). There are ways to have easy access to magic without having excessive access to magic.

That's more a gameplay question. Beating down dragons is traditionally a sure-fire way to get the best stuff. Anyone can buy a sword, but if you fight a dragon in a game, and find a sword in his stash of dragon loot, you can be pretty damn sure that it's a cooler sword than what you can in the sword shop. Then there are all the suits of armour made of dragon scales and so on. If magic is really powerful, it should be hard to get, because that is how character growth works. You can't just hand the player the best stuff.

DF does many things differently, of course. Instead of any kind of progression, there's just this wide open sandbox, with all the equipment strewn around randomly. I think this is more because it's not done yet than any conscious design choice.

Incidentally, if magic isn't powerful, it might still make sense to force you to beat up dragons to get it. Players are going to value it a lot more if they feel they really worked for it. Like, if the sword you find in the dragon's stash is functionally identical to all other swords but has some cosmetic difference, players are going to treasure it because it reminds them of how they beat that dragon.

Mostly I am trying to argue that magic doesn't need counter balances (Wizards can't use armor, magic must be really rare, magicians can't use weapons, magic has a chance to blow you up) it just needs to come out in a form that works with the game where any counter balances come from just the logic of magic rather then as a way to keep the game balanced.

Basically that instead of trying to balance magic that doesn't exist. We should instead try to introduce balanced magic.

What's the difference? If you're trying to create a balanced something, isn't thinking about which things are too powerful and making up counterbalances exactly what you are doing?

And what does "logic of the magic" mean? "Counterbalances" exist by definition to keep the game balanced. What I'm getting from this is that we should just invent a flawless magic system ex nihilo, and if it has any balance problems then we have failed forever, and any attempts to change the system to make it more balanced are ruining some kind of magical vision. What are you really trying to say?

[Neonivek]

What's the difference?

One is going "Ohh no magic is going to be too powerful! Quick lets balance it!"

and the other is going "Lets make a system of magic that may not be overpowered"

While they are the same on the surface.. One ALREADY has the conclusion of what magic is. While the second actually can adjust magic itself.

But to tell you the difference between the two lets take the spell "Fireball"

The first group will make sure mages can't use armor, cannot run, cannot use other weapons, the fireball may explode in their face, their hearts may give out, or what have you.

While the second can actually work with the fireball itself and make it a "fireball" rather then a "kill you with a fire effect" spell.

The first group never touches magic and only adds onto it in order to balance it because in its mind magic has already been decided. While the second group understands that magic has yet to come about and needs not be balanced in artificial ways and that the "balance of magic" can simply stem out of how magic is handled rather then how magic is limited.

What I'm getting from this is that we should just invent a flawless magic system ex nihilo, and if it has any balance problems then we have failed forever, and any attempts to change the system to make it more balanced are ruining some kind of magical vision. What are you really trying to say?

No it is that the balance and limitations should come from magic itself and not from artificial limits put onto it from an already imagined existence.

If a wizard cannot wear armor for example, it should stem not from "Magic is too powerful" but because "The way magic exists it wouldn't make sense". If magic is too powerful and there is a need to balance it, just weaken magic. These counter balances can come about but they should be organic to the material and not set against the material to obtain balance.

If this was an ordinary game where the logic of the game didn't matter I'd have no problem (Armor and magic doesn't work in a mindless videogame? Who cares!) but this isn't that kind of game.

[Soadreqm]

One is going "Ohh no magic is going to be too powerful! Quick lets balance it!"
and the other is going "Lets make a system of magic that may not be overpowered"
While they are the same on the surface.. One ALREADY has the conclusion of what magic is. While the second actually can adjust magic itself.
But to tell you the difference between the two lets take the spell "Fireball"
The first group will make sure mages can't use armor, cannot run, cannot use other weapons, the fireball may explode in their face, their hearts may give out, or what have you.
While the second can actually work with the fireball itself and make it a "fireball" rather then a "kill you with a fire effect" spell.
The first group never touches magic and only adds onto it in order to balance it because in its mind magic has already been decided. While the second group understands that magic has yet to come about and needs not be balanced in artificial ways and that the "balance of magic" can simply stem out of how magic is handled rather then how magic is limited.

That does sound quite silly, yes, but I don't think that is what is happening in this thread. ._.
Admittedly, I only reread the part I could see in the preview window, so maybe there was a huge argument on the first page about whether wizards can run.

Also, what do you mean when you say "fireball" rather than a "kill you with a fire effect" spell?

No it is that the balance and limitations should come from magic itself and not from artificial limits put onto it from an already imagined existence.
If a wizard cannot wear armor for example, it should stem not from "Magic is too powerful" but because "The way magic exists it wouldn't make sense". If magic is too powerful and there is a need to balance it, just weaken magic. These counter balances can come about but they should be organic to the material and not set against the material to obtain balance.
If this was an ordinary game where the logic of the game didn't matter I'd have no problem (Armor and magic doesn't work in a mindless videogame? Who cares!) but this isn't that kind of game.

Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, mages don't wear armour because it makes them too clumsy to wave their arms about in the correct manner. And I think that one system, I forget where, iron hinders spellcasting for some reason, meaning that you can't cast spells while wearing armour or wielding weapons made of it. Both of those balances exist because magic is too powerful. The developers thought of a counterbalance and then figured out a bullshit explanation for why it must be so. And I really don't see how else it could happen. How could the balance come from the magic itself? I mean sure, if you just go and implement some magic, it MIGHT be balanced from the start, and that would be great. Suppose it isn't, though? I still don't understand what you're suggesting. If you're not allowed to put limitations on magic, then what? Toss everything out? Just live with horribly unbalanced magic? Also, at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that if magic is too powerful, it should be made weaker. I don't get it.

[Neonivek]

Also, what do you mean when you say "fireball" rather than a "kill you with a fire effect" spell?

If a fireball hits you it is hot and made of fire. If a "Kill you with a fire effect" spell hits you, you take X Fire damage and die.

One is balanced simply because the implications of a fireball are handled with realism and not given an arbitrary effect (If you moved your hand through a fire fast enough you could even get away with not getting burned, an actual fireball isn't as powerful as videogames would make you think). While the second is abstracted for simplicity (Fireball does X Damage)

Well, in Dungeons and Dragons, mages don't wear armour because it makes them too clumsy to wave their arms about in the correct manner

In dungeons and dragons it is because roles are so important as well Wizards have quadratic growth.

The explanation for why Mages don't wear armor and the rules that surround them are weak because the actual logic behind the mechanics do not hold up.

For example you take spell failure and AoO if your spells still have verbal components. You don't take spell failure for any armor that isn't part of the armor set. As well many effects that do interrupt spells do not offer outright spell chance failure but a concentration check.

It is an artificial system that isn't consistent with its own internal logic and exists only to balance the system. While works for dungeons and dragons because it is a game that focuses a lot on roleplaying and rollplaying. The mechanical aspect of dungeons and dragons is a large part of the game.

I think that one system, I forget where, iron hinders spellcasting for some reason, meaning that you can't cast spells while wearing armour or wielding weapons made of it.

It is druids and they have the exact opposite issue in that their weakness, which actually does make sense, is a non-weakness because they include so many ways around it that it might as well not be there.

But at least they are a system that makes sense and that the rules are consistent with where the internal logic still applies. The reasons it is a non-weakness also make sense and can be a problem with people who don't have the tools to deal with it.

 

If you're not allowed to put limitations on magic, then what? Toss everything out? Just live with horribly unbalanced magic?

It is simple, if you want to put limitations on magic it should be because you want to present magic a certain way. Magic itself can be adjusted to balance itself. If you already have limitations that stem naturally from the way magic is used in the setting then that limitation can also be adjusted and compared.

Since people aren't arguing for overpowered magic that needs to be balanced. They are starting with the idea that magic is overpowered and thus needs to be balanced.

I mean you are aware you are doing it too right "Just live with horribly unbalanced magic?" may I add, why is it unbalanced? Why does it have to be unbalanced? Why is it that the only way to balance this magic is to add artificial unrelated effects that ape logic without actually being logical?

If you want magic to be incompatible with armor for example you need a reason like, for example Dungeons and dragons reasoning (that it requires very precise movements that cannot deviate even slightly), however the difference between dungeons and dragons and dwarf fortress is that you have to keep this consistent and make it a feature rather then a balance and support it through the mechanics and representation (so for example making the mage actually move about for a spell and the loss of even a finger damaging his casting ability forever). As well because you can balance magic directly it means that the desire to put in this sort of system doesn't have to be motivated as balance but rather because this flavor of magic works best. In fact it would be better off if it wasn't motivated that way.

When someone suggested a while back that mages not be able to use weapons or wear armor because he wanted wizards to be the wizards in his stories I rejected it on the grounds of being artificial and that its idea couldn't be supported by its internal logic (as well I stated that this is based upon wizards in fiction who tend not to use armor and weapons either because they are noncombatants, they don't need it, or it isn't useful). That if he wanted to suggest such a system that it needed to stem naturally from the simulation or rather from what magic essentially was.

This is all without me getting into my opinion that magic doesn't need strong balance but loose balance because as a simulation Dwarf Fortress can relax balance for the sake of it being a simulation. In the same way that all weapons aren't balanced or all armor isn't balanced. Yet that isn't what this conversation is about (I don't know if this is off topic or not... then again this is about whether or not the idea of the thread is even valid)

I am not against balance I want some semblance of balance. I am against both artificial mechanical balancing as well as the forced idea of unbalanced magic that must be balanced.

And by 'Unbalanced magic that must be balanced" I mean I am against the idea that ALL magic is unbalanced magic that must be balanced through extra systems. My belief is that magic can be balanced internally within itself and thus the scope of discussion must include how magic itself is balanced rather then how affecting those who practitioners magic balances it. Thus conversations can escape "How can we stop wizards from being good at magic and combat so they aren't unstoppable" and actually present the idea of "How much should a spell change the tide of combat? How does this affect the narrative and simulation?"

Basically I want the idea of magic as applied to dwarf fortress to expand and new avenues to be explored so that we stop immediately trying to include the most artificial and tacked on solution to a problem that has yet to exist. To instead think of ways that the problem may never exist in the first place and how magic should be present in a simulation and narrative sense.

[Silverionmox]

The kind of "fireball" used in standard D&D is actually some kind of grenade. Just a ball of flames on you for a few second wouldn't do any real damage apart from singing your hairs and setting loose papers on fire. It just shows how unthinkably we accept the conventions of the genre.

I think the thing that stimulates magic to be overpowered is the tendency to design one grand system that allows you to do everything. IMO it would be more interesting storywise to have a lot of small magic systems that have limited applicability, might overlap and are not geographically and socially universal. As a consequence it's harder to accumulate power ad infinitum, but to gain versatility you have to start from scratch learning a new system again. It would also be more normal to combine it with other skills, so the stereotypical brainy wizard vs brawny fighter conundrum would disappear in favor of adventurers who develop themselves according to their needs and opportunities, rather than picking a specialization at day one and keep grinding until they becomes gods. One might actually see a warrior with a bit of kabbalistic skill, or a scout with voodoo knowledge, or a pirate that knows how to do some alchemy in a pinch.