Workings of Magic

[@stroVal]

Before I start this topic I would have you know I haven't finished the final chapter of the rulebook so I might be missing something and I haven't actually played any sessions using the game yet(that will happen this summer when I'll meet my old role-playing team halfway across Europe for our first campaign using FC)

That said I would like this forum's opinion on the workings of magic,from a role-playing perspective(the more the merrier as we say )
The way I see it: magic is open to all who have the ''gift'' and as with any real-life skill having a talent is not enough,you have to hone it,get more training,research on your own...
So there are universities for mage training or you could have a mentor like in the old times to do that for you..
As always the path to knowledge and power is a solitary path and there is a limit to what one can teach you as you need to progress further on your own.
On the other hand there are those who refuse to see magic as a science or discipline..the so called ''wild mages'' or sorcerers follow a more instinctual approach like the first spell-casters in the dawn of time
As the system is not vancian by default but more like the mana-based games(a wise choice imo) there is no need for spellbooks apart from your role-playing description(a wizened mage would keep a grimoire)

So apologizing for the lengthy post what I want is everybody's opinion on that..what story have you used in your home-brew campaign about the workings of magic?(or its origin for that matter)
I would also like the wisdom of the game creators on this if they are kind enough to grace me with their responce

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

..what story have you used in your home-brew campaign about the workings of magic?(or its origin for that matter)

I can't really answer about how magic works because while I can certainly come up with explanations for how its effects get done that doesn't feel like it adds much flavor most of the time.

For my personal setting there are two ways to get magical effects: natural and arrogant.
Arrogant happens when you use the usual ways of making magic do stuff (i.e. words, rituals, force of will) to whip magic into your slave.  However magic is an intelligent force and doesn't like being used like that.  In the past of the setting there was a civilization of these mages, but magic finally lashed out and killed them all and messed up the world and the people in the process.  Now in the present time the magic is much less likely to bend over and let people abuse it.  So while there can still be casters they have a very short life if they cast too often (and "often" is pretty restrictive here) because the magic will kill them otherwise.  Plus since there's likely to be a big backlash at the surrounding area people are afraid of casters anyway.
Natural magic instead works with the way magic already functions as a force in the world (where as Arrogant magic is about changing the way the world works).  Essentially certain pre-built effects happen when certain materials are brought together in certain ways.  So some natural creatures have this in their bodies and can do a magic trick or two, or someone can put the materials together into a magic item.  (Note: You do not put magic in the way enchantment is normally defined in something like D&D, rather the pieces of magic potential are already there and you simply put together the puzzle.  This does not preclude the inclusion of Charms.)

[MilitiaJim]

The magic system presented in the Fantasy Craft book does not specify how arcane practitioners come by their power for one simple reason:  From a rules perspective, it does not matter.

"The way it works," trained versus inborn power is a matter of fluff, to be decided for flavor by the GM and players before the game starts.


Your "Arrogant Magic" sounds like one of the campaign qualities, and if it doesn't exist it is something similar to corrupting or wild magic.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Was that entire post addressed to me or just this part:

Your "Arrogant Magic" sounds like one of the campaign qualities, and if it doesn't exist it is something similar to corrupting or wild magic.

Actually the first time I made a quality out of it it looked like this:

Sorcery (Corrupting Magic [caster dies if he/she becomes tainted V], Lost Magic [all], Wild Magic [critical failure only, failure also occurs on critical success])

Wild Magic was originally included by the idea that if the mage really botched or managed the manipulation too well the magic would throw a generalized (as opposed to specific "kill the mage") tantrum.  It's probably overkill.
Corrupting Magic probably should have a rule where the more powerful the spell the more tainted grades you get, so that casting a higher-level spell is (at least) one step away from annihilation.  Also the tainted grades should take longer to fade.

[@stroVal]

The magic system presented in the Fantasy Craft book does not specify how arcane practitioners come by their power for one simple reason:  From a rules perspective, it does not matter.

"The way it works," trained versus inborn power is a matter of fluff, to be decided for flavor by the GM and players before the game starts.


Your "Arrogant Magic" sounds like one of the campaign qualities, and if it doesn't exist it is something similar to corrupting or wild magic.

Exactly..I wanted to start this discussion on the storytelling/fluff side..no rules necessary

[@stroVal]

But I believe I prefer that all spell-casters(be it the archmage of a university or a sorcerer) have inborn power..the way its used or their approach to learning it is only different

I always thought(and that's that,just my opinion) sorcerers with the dnd/Vancian sytem felt more ''chosen" or ''talented'' than poor old wizards who only have their intelligence...in that aspect every bright person could use magic but some where privileged(charisma based users) while others not,so wizards didn't feel gifted or unique(apart from their wits)

While with fantasy craft(or more precisely the way I propose to use this system) every ''gifted person'' can use magic be it: a soldier who doesn't care much for complexity (or academic research on magic) or a more conventional mageling .
So I don't think this can be filed under the ''trained vs inborn power'' matter exactly

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Natural magic isn't spellcasting like a D&D sorcerer.  The key in the that section is that a magical creature has a "trick or two".  Anything born with the magic does not have a large repretoire.  The different in mechanics is that Arrogant is done using the Spellcasting skill, while natural (for creatures) is via the natural spell NPC quality (or a feat for PCs).

[@stroVal]

Actually the way I see it nobody is like the dnd sorcerer with FC(unless they try to make it so)..I am just thinking of keeping the name to describe those who refuse to be trained further in magic with discipline or maybe  those who are experts on spells related with charming etc (and to explain that quality at the beginning of the book <sorcerer> )
But your system with arrogant magic is an interesting alternative

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I'm not trying to explain anything out of the book.  I thought you just wanted to know about our personal magic systems and was explaining that.  I don't even need to have Arrogant magic, it just exists for the purpose of giving a "take that" to the usual way magic has been done in fiction.

[Sletchman]

In my game the Seer and Channeler represented innate magic and the Mage was the traditional mage.  Closest comparison is the Sorceror = Seer / Channeler [and they will be joined by the Conjurer, Reaper, Trickster, etc] and the Wizard = Mage.

[Crafty_Alex]

Actually the way I see it nobody is like the dnd sorcerer with FC(unless they try to make it so)..

Heh, from a mechanical perspective I'd say all arcane casters are closer to D&D sorcerers than wizards (namely because their magic is very free form - no spell memorization or sleeping required).

[@stroVal]

I'm not trying to explain anything out of the book.  I thought you just wanted to know about our personal magic systems and was explaining that.  I don't even need to have Arrogant magic, it just exists for the purpose of giving a "take that" to the usual way magic has been done in fiction.

I know; I am sorry if my reply lead you to believe otherwise..that post wasn't very well put together I'm afraid

[@stroVal]

Actually the way I see it nobody is like the dnd sorcerer with FC(unless they try to make it so)..

Heh, from a mechanical perspective I'd say all arcane casters are closer to D&D sorcerers than wizards (namely because their magic is very free form - no spell memorization or sleeping required).

Too true..I was thinking the dragon-kin-charisma aspect 

[@stroVal]

One system of magic I really liked and one that can be used with FC with real ease, was in Brent Week's book series ''Night Angel Trilogy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Angel_Trilogy

Explained in the part: 3 Magic of the article without major spoilers for those who haven't read the books

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

That bit about the Glore Vyrden needing to replenish if you want to use magic more than once or twice reminds me of a magic system from a webcomic I once read:

Living beings had a "life line" which dictated how generally healthy they are by the life flowing through it (I'm interpreting and guessing a little, since I only read through once and it was some time ago).  They also have a "magic line" that's wrapped around the life line.  If you use magic the magic line tightens around the life line, eventually choking it or cutting it off.  There were two ways around this: One way is to "loop" your life line so you have a continuous life feed and thus can't get it cut off (and a bonus allowing you to heal from even death).  The other is to have an outside source that can take the chocking instead of your life line.