[Design] Magic: An Initial Sketch

[David Cake]

At 3:42 PM -0800 2/12/05, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>  In traditional cultures (slavery and
>feudalism), magic becomes split into - to use the
>Rolemaster terms - Channelling (supernatural,
>priests), Essence (paranormal, wizards) and Mentalism
>(psychic, mystics).

	Personally, this doesn't really work for me much at all. Its 
a grand reductionist classification scheme for those things that by 
their nature fit poorly such schemes, and its imposing a single 
cultures view on the world.
	Many religions would strongly claim that their religious 
practices fit none of these categories. the category of psychic is 
essentially a modern concept, and one with relatively little 
connection to mysticism. Mentalism and bodily control have nothing to 
do with each other in many schemes. What are here clearly subdivided 
into Essence and Channelling are indistinguishable in many schemes 
(classical theurgy, for example).
	I think you'll have much better results if you take out the 
grand classification scheme with its implied 'three sizes fits all' 
cosmology, and just have the concepts of achievable effects and 
methods, and magical traditions with are able to access some subset 
of those achievable effects and methods via their individual 
techniques.
	Its worth noting that the neat overarching schemes of games 
like RuneQuest, Ars Magica, etc almost all start to splinter once 
they hit actual cultures. Best to avoid that road at the start.

At 3:42 PM -0800 2/12/05, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>Like language itself (and like Ars Magica) the
>practise of magic can be summised a noun/verb
>combination. The nouns are limited according to the
>elements; Earth, Wind, Fire, Water and Aether (or, to
>use the Japanese, Chi, Fu, Ka, Sui and Ku, or the
>Hindu Bhoomi, Vayu, Agni, Jala and Akasa) and the
>humours; Sanguine, Choleric, Phlegmatic, Melancholic.
>Actions on these nouns Perceive, Transform, Create,
>Destroy and Control (it would be really good if I
>could find correlations with the Chinese ways, but
>it's not there :/).

	There are dozens of such classification schemes. A commitment 
to any single one, no matter how universal it seems, will have 
incompatibility problems with some others.
	Its a difficult problem, and there are multiple strategys. 
You can just declare solidly that one is true in game, and others are 
approximations or minor variations. You can explicitly say some rules 
are cultural dependent, and you'll write new rules for new cultures. 
Or you can come up with rules for dealing with multiple 
classification schemes.

At 3:42 PM -0800 2/12/05, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>The problem with monotheism denying the validity of
>other magical traditions it was simply par for the
>course that people began raising the question of the
>validity of *any* magical tradition whatsoever. From
>the 18th century onwards, the magical hold on the
>universe gradually dissipitated leaving few creatures
>and examples of Spirit left.
>
>Neat, eh?
>

	I think in game cosmological explanations for why magic fades 
away are unnecessary and don't really add to the game, myself. Unless 
your characters are actually going to live long enough to see the 
process happen, and its for some reason important to you to have your 
fascinating fantasy universe become mundane as they do so, there is 
no need for it. And do you really want to make it in game canon that 
the universe becomes less interesting?
	Cheers
		David