Fixed "Magical Rules"

[Taeryon Silverlight]

From all the posts on the other proposal about Manadrains, it is clear, that there are dozens of different opinions about the magic and how it works. I think that, for the RP's sake, there should be some basic rules the GMs should decide on and that every mage has to stick to.

Past showed that also, when dozens of POs of mages argued about if a certain ritual makes sense or not, why it can't work or can, why someone rped magic like that or that and so on. There are endless discussions and when you ask a GM the answer you get most often is: "I would say it like that, but I can't really tell it 100%. There are about as many opinions on that in the Staff as there are members."

I'm not saying that the GMs should tell us do that, add that, then say that and that will happen. I mean real basic basics, like what happens 100% when a mage uses up too much mana, how much do ties around a mage's hand and a cloth in their mouth hinder their magic and so on.

This is nesecarry in my opinion, to have the RP make sense in itself. What I mean is:

Mage A who's PO believes theory X has been doing a really strong ritual that was two hours of really hard work. After that, he lays down in a bed and sleeps a long sleep because his theory sais, that the thing he did is bloody exhausting.

Mage B who's PO believes theory Y has been doing the same thing and is totally fit, jumping around after 1 minute of taking breath, because his theory sais, that using so much magic doesn't do anything to a mage at all.

Once again, I don't want to have scientistic rules set on the magic, but basics should told so that the mages' POs have a "ABC" of fundamentals. Just because one doesn't believe that it hurts when he gets his arm cut off doesn't mean he doesn't feel the pain, if you know what I mean.

Edit: After readin over it again, I saw dozens of failures, but I'm lazy and German, so stick with it

[Evan Ross]

I agree, There needs to be some information provided by the staff about basic magic stuff.

[Llama]

I agree, but I think the GMs should do this by talking to people who already RP mages, to see different opinions.

[Aegohl]

There's already quite a bit of magic theory that can be read on the message boards and are taught by folks like Dji. As I've posted elsewhere, though, I'm not completely happy with the past treatment on magic theory and would like to rewrite it, but it wouldn't be a clean rewrite. I'm sure it would lead to arguments with people who like the old way, and it might even require rewriting a minor bit of Illarion history (but even careful cuts tend to anger some people). Long story short: You can't win 'em all.

[Taeryon Silverlight]

There's already quite a bit of magic theory that can be read on the message boards and are taught by folks like Dji. As I've posted elsewhere, though, I'm not completely happy with the past treatment on magic theory and would like to rewrite it, but it wouldn't be a clean rewrite. I'm sure it would lead to arguments with people who like the old way, and it might even require rewriting a minor bit of Illarion history (but even careful cuts tend to anger some people). Long story short: You can't win 'em all.

The problem is that there isn't just one background but many. Most of the things Dji teaches are only known to him or his students. Some are the total difference of what I learnd with my first mage and also taught my own students and no one can be sure that his theory is liked by the Staff or not. A player can't really know which theory to stick to to be on the safe side when f.e. writing a ritual he wants to ask the GM's permission for. It happened to myself that, about one year ago, I did a ritual that a GM had red over and agreed on before I did it. When rumors spread about said ritual, some players of mages' POs contacted me, telling me that parts of my ritual were nonsense and could've never worked while others totally agreed on it or told me that they wanted to do a similar thing and asked an other GM but were not allowed to do the ritual because it wouldn't be senseful.

What I'm talking about isn't a totally detailed theory about everything and everyone like Dji's is. I'm talking about simple basics.

[Nalzaxx]

No no no no no no and no.

The problem arises when people try to use OOC knowledge to influence IG happenings. For instance, "I don't like that your character could do this, but my IG objections are ignored, so I will take it OOC and bitch that the 'magic rules' don't allow it in an attempt to coerce your roleplay."

Actually setting out rules like this only aggrevates the problem, giving such people a foothold.

Personally I don't think there should be any OOC info on how it works, or any OOC history at all. That way, ideological, theoretic and historical discrepencies can be sorted out the way they are meant to. INGAME BETWEEN CHARACTERS.

All these people pracing around preaching that their IG philosophies are OOC fact only do so in attempt to justify their own wonder powers at the expense of other people's.

Let the engine decide what you can and can't do. Let the GM's decide if roleplay is sufficient for a reward and let the characters ingame worry about the way the world works.

[Aegohl]

Well, the only thing I was offering is a more realistic theory that actually requires that the player adopt a magical worldview to understand it, rather than "logicking out" magic like most fantasy settings tend to do. I suppose the difference is that I think most players are mature enough to do that.

It stands to reason that, at the very least, the magic academy should have standard curriculum (and it does, and it's the same stuff that Dji and Damien have been teaching for years). I'm just arguing that that standard curriculum is just a little bit blah and could be more spicy. =)

[Llama]

The Academy DOES have a curriculum.

Problem is, when people bend the theory, then it gets very messed up.

The academy theory states that dead beings cant cast magic. But look at what Dji did.

See what I mean? Who was right and who wasn't ? Dji apparently was right in an IG frame, because he did; but what about the magic theory?

[Julius]

Lich are undead. Does that count as being "alive"?

[Aegohl]

Right, that's one problem I have with the current curriculum. Undead, theoretically, wouldn't be able to cast, whereas we know better and it would be unfun if we didn't have casting undead.

but my main problem is that it's just kind of bleh and has no roots to any kind of folklore. Fantasy that's just a brain fart annoys me. When it's tied to folklore it just has better depth.

[jregan91]

I think it should be classed as common knowledge that would have accumulated over time since the use of magic has been around for a long time there would be some basics that would be nearly concrete like up is up down is down and that if you jump into a campfire it hurts ((due to recent upgrades: P)) and that when you cast your mana bar decreases


But these aren’t rules just a general understanding so this also allows some creature with enormous power decides to defy that common knowledge which suddenly causes an enormous upheaval of mages and theories which gives some ig activity i.e. a gathering of all mages to discuss dji deciding cast from beyond the grave: p

Also I wouldn’t want this common knowledge to be 100% that would be creatively boring about 96% would be right but mages can say that these are the facts and live by them

[Magdha Tiefenerz]

If we get official rules for mages could we please remove the dependency from other players to learn magic. As far as I could read it the only justification for that was the proper transmission of the rules. Do I already see the answers of all those mighty mages screaming "no".

[pharse]

As far as I could read it the only justification for that was the proper transmission of the rules.

It is because there is no other working teaching system for magic right now. Please no discussion about that. Wrong topic.

[Magdha Tiefenerz]

As far as I could read it the only justification for that was the proper transmission of the rules.

It is because there is no other working teaching system for magic right now. Please no discussion about that. Wrong topic.

Oh, you mean the give away of the runes I guess. Well, if you want to stick with this you are right.

[AlexRose]

Sam, the underlying problem is not the theories, but the reality.

If I BELIEVE that walking into a fire won't give me severe burns, that's not going to stop the inevitable. Just because mages have THEORIES about what should happen when xyz happens doesn't mean that's how they should react when in said situation. e.g. the debate on mana vacuums, where some players would think that being a mage in a mana vacuum would leave you physically drained, whereas others might see it as simply disabling you from casting. The fact that your character BELIEVES that he would be physically drained or not wouldn't change the fact of the matter; it either drains you or it doesn't.

[Pellandria]

The academy theory states that dead beings cant cast magic. But look at what Dji did.

See what I mean? Who was right and who wasn't ? Dji apparently was right in an IG frame, because he did; but what about the magic theory?

With all honesty, I think we can agree that this "quest" was one big ooc thing that was pushed trougth favorism by some gm's, the mere fact that you can't start a discussion or even get some "sense" into it is strange enough, furthermore its funny to see how he broke about all the rules he and damien made up, so yeah think we would all do better and ignore that crap and not count it to any actually ig happening, because it made no sense at all.

Coming back to the original topic I agree, we need atleast some basic rules from the Gm's that say "it goes this and that way" not to complex or anything, just some basic rules.

Just let me do an example.
Normally an ressurection of a char needs 1 "Live" in exchange as far as I know resurecting dain took even two lives, mind that these lifves come from "playable" races so no animals, now I heard that some ressurections can suddendly be made with animals, at this place I would really like to see what kind of resurrection the orcs made with that goblin in the orc mountains, because another rulesays thatone can only make a ritual ~if~ he learned it ig, but I guess thats not a problem with grakir around, I simply would like to see what happens how.

There are just things in magic that are simply strange, a few months ago I was told that my char for example suddendly can't use all the magic abilietys she did before for rpsake, leaving with only the usual engine stuff, if we now actually get fixed rules than this stupid "asking for powers" would actually stop.

For "the casting undeads", the elven theory decides between controlled and uncontrolled magic. Controlled magic means you need the 3 Steps of "magic" one needs to understand/know the rune( More or less having a physical "brain" to ~store~ the knowledge), speak the rune in ancient and channel the streams to finally cast the spell.
Uncontrolled magic on the other side is something like "I want destruction, lets do it" this is more or less what Monster do, simply by having the "gift" but never really learning how to controll it they can do random bursts of harmfull energy.

So there is no reason for not having fixed rules, the argument that it would be changing any ideological stuff is "wrong" aswell, honestly that argument comes up again and again, yet I never see anyone voice their opinion Ig other than what we got with mages, mind you that saying "yeah my char has his own opinion but doesn't share it does" not really count atall.

[Llama]

Sam, the underlying problem is not the theories, but the reality.

William Elderberry casts a wood ruining spell "HA! All your wood is ruined"

[Damien]

Normally, and i think in folklore as well, "undead" is seen as mainly as some perverted, unholy version of "life", referring to undead things which are evil/angry spirits, some forced to be bound to their body or inhabiting it.
It's a simple, usually most-people-satisfying view that these would be likely to spellcast.

The second, non-casting undead type may be simple animation of dead things without any spirit, and some mage controlling their movements like bone marionettes. They'd be unable to think even a word, and totally unable to cast spells, as long as said mage does not put some magical stuff into them that acts as a magic type of gun or bomb

There was no enforced "official" thing, i just gave out some theory basics which are connected to / originating in the background concept line.
These have no embedded explanation for stuff like how undead "work" and are held quite open, and a lot of that stuff just serves to let players have fun rping mage stuff, and to be extended into various directions.

However, most actually used and teached things deal with such explanations and are from various different own concept ideas made by many players, and most may not have anything to do with the above mentioned basics, or even contradict them - it's just "different theories"

Anyway, however things are put and defined officially, most people will make up, add in or bent towards their own stuff, if things are not kinda put through with some force behind.

An official concept would create some order, which can be positive in some aspects and is an idea that needs thinking about.
The drawback though would be a lot of work, since if you change one part in the world background, that change usually affects different places throughout a lot of other texts which might cause you to edit lots and lots of things and details for quite a while.
Plus, as Aegohl mentioned, lots of people would dislike it if you "kick away" their own theories, and kinda force them to change how they play it.

Depending on what type of quests and things and NPCs are planned, it may be worth the efforts though. Just watch what Aegohl may have up his sleeves.

[Juliana D'cheyne]

When it's tied to folklore it just has better depth.

I somewhat agree, however one reason I love Illarion is the openness of the RP....being able to express my OWN ideas without having to follow the "set route" of another written as "this is the way to do it". I have played another game that the "folklore" is so extensive, it limits a lot of imagination in RPing your char.

Plus, as Aegohl mentioned, lots of people would dislike it if you "kick away" their own theories, and kinda force them to change how they play it.

Let me give an example... the resurrection of Dain took a RL summer to accomplish with talking to a lot of mages to get ideas on "how to" and different theories, combining what could be done RP wise with the times chars could get ig. Originally had in mind just "getting blood" from other chars hoping to find someone with a free slot willing to perma but if not, would try the ritual another way. In other words it was a VERY long quest with a lot of chars involved and a lot of fun! If there were set rules, I am not sure we would have been able to do them yet also think it would have taken away a lot of the fun in discussion of theory and planning including ig RP planned and spontaneous.

[Nalzaxx]

All I am saying is keep the discussion about how magic works INGAME.

I couldn't give a crap otherwise.

Its all this OOC discussion about how magic 'works' that drives me insane.

The debate should be between characters and not players.

If something strange happens ingame it is the responsibility of the CHARACTERS to understand why and adjust their theories accordingly. It is not something for the PLAYERS to discuss.

This way it happens more naturally, kind of like the way it happens in real life. We have theories about how the universe works because it is subjective and the only perspective we have is our own. We can't go 'OOC' in real life and discuss the laws of physics. So why should our characters be able to go OOC and discuss the laws of magic.

If you do this you avoid the whole problem of what magic is and how it works because its not something that should concern us as players, but something that concerns us as characters within the world of illarion.

[Taeryon Silverlight]

All I am saying is keep the discussion about how magic works INGAME.

I couldn't give a crap otherwise.

Its all this OOC discussion about how magic 'works' that drives me insane.

The debate should be between characters and not players.

If something strange happens ingame it is the responsibility of the CHARACTERS to understand why and adjust their theories accordingly. It is not something for the PLAYERS to discuss.

This way it happens more naturally, kind of like the way it happens in real life. We have theories about how the universe works because it is subjective and the only perspective we have is our own. We can't go 'OOC' in real life and discuss the laws of physics. So why should our characters be able to go OOC and discuss the laws of magic.

If you do this you avoid the whole problem of what magic is and how it works because its not something that should concern us as players, but something that concerns us as characters within the world of illarion.

You absolutely donT' get a point. I'm not talking about a rulebook and scientistic laws.

Char A shoots a fireball at Char B and Char C.

Char B giggles and holds his stomach because he knows that fireballs are tickly and funny. (still he gets a damn painful burnmark)

Char C collapses and starts to snare because he knows that fireballs are paralyzing sleep-spells. (still he gets a damn painful burmark)

We need the Staff to enforce that both of them rp the burnmark also.

Understand that?

[Nalzaxx]

Huh? Why is everyone talking about the magic academies curriculum and whether you can cast if you're dead or not then?


In response to your original statement then:

Isn't that just common sense?

I chop someone's arm off and they act like Monty Python's Black Knight I report them and go off my merry way.

I shoot a fireball at someone and they act like they're sunbathing I do the same.

It's just poor roleplay and we already have rules governing that.

Unless you're suggesting we have for example a rule that says, "You get hit by a fireball, it hurts"

Is there really a need for this?

[Mesha]

You get hit by a fireball, it hurts. The GM has spoken.

I, for one, wholeheartedly agree with Nalzaxx, especially about people adjusting their theories of magic ingame. However, as much as I agree, I also fear that it will never ever happen.

[Juliana D'cheyne]

You get hit by a fireball, it hurts. The GM has spoken.

I, for one, wholeheartedly agree with Nalzaxx, especially about people adjusting their theories of magic ingame. However, as much as I agree, I also fear that it will never ever happen.

Might be fun to have a three day "symposium" to discuss magic theory, after all mages are always learning.

[Djironnyma]

I must agree that a strict magic theory given from the staff would cut many rp off. I like it that there are different point of views ig. BUT it would make sense if the staff can formulate some binding "feel like" 's. So dont explain how anything could work, but how things feel, if you e.g. run out of mana or if you are in the near of a mana spring, or what you feel if you get a rune, drink a manapotion, travel with a portal, make a self-teleportaion... (i think that a fireball hurts is clear ^.^). That is what Tearyon try to say (i think) and i think that would make sense.

A second point is the real different point of views what ritual is for what mage possible in what not. One GM allowed a real powerful ritual a very young mage, and let it work with no problem, and a other mage say a very powerful mage he would die by such a ritual. I dont want to blame the GM for this, i know it is hard to appraise how "mighty" or "danger" a ritual is, at least because it is all rp and no engine help you to balance. But i suggest that in future only one (or ~two (german/english)) GMs are in authority to allowed magic rituals, so it would be more consistent, which ritual is allowed and which isnt.

[Taeryon Silverlight]

I must agree that a strict magic theory given from the staff would cut many rp off. I like it that there are different point of views ig. BUT it would make sense if the staff can formulate some binding "feel like" 's. So dont explain how anything could work, but how things feel, if you e.g. run out of mana or if you are in the near of a mana spring, or what you feel if you get a rune, drink a manapotion, travel with a portal, make a self-teleportaion... (i think that a fireball hurts is clear ^.^). That is what Tearyon try to say (i think) and i think that would make sense.

A second point is the real different point of views what ritual is for what mage possible in what not. One GM allowed a real powerful ritual a very young mage, and let it work with no problem, and a other mage say a very powerful mage he would die by such a ritual. I dont want to blame the GM for this, i know it is hard to appraise how "mighty" or "danger" a ritual is, at least because it is all rp and no engine help you to balance. But i suggest that in future only one (or ~two (german/english)) GMs are in authority to allowed magic rituals, so it would be more consistent, which ritual is allowed and which isnt.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Halleluja.

[Sundo Raca]

Ban magic.

[AlexRose]

Ban magic.

no u

[Juliana D'cheyne]

I must agree that a strict magic theory given from the staff would cut many rp off. I like it that there are different point of views ig. BUT it would make sense if the staff can formulate some binding "feel like" 's. So dont explain how anything could work, but how things feel, if you e.g. run out of mana or if you are in the near of a mana spring, or what you feel if you get a rune, drink a manapotion, travel with a portal, make a self-teleportaion... (i think that a fireball hurts is clear ^.^). That is what Tearyon try to say (i think) and i think that would make sense.

A second point is the real different point of views what ritual is for what mage possible in what not. One GM allowed a real powerful ritual a very young mage, and let it work with no problem, and a other mage say a very powerful mage he would die by such a ritual. I dont want to blame the GM for this, i know it is hard to appraise how "mighty" or "danger" a ritual is, at least because it is all rp and no engine help you to balance. But i suggest that in future only one (or ~two (german/english)) GMs are in authority to allowed magic rituals, so it would be more consistent, which ritual is allowed and which isnt.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Halleluja.

....and this is dictating an RP aspect of magic which IMO is limiting the imagination of the player. Even the "effects" dictated can be limiting. Suppose I want the wind spell to be a "gentle" wind and not "blow" a char down? Suppose I RP the food spell when used "tastes like strawberries" yet someone else says it doesn't have a taste? I think BOTH aspects are alright for a char to RP without having my RP limited by set "rules". IF a char wants to RP that a burning fire spell tickles ig then stands in it and ghosts subsequently RPing they ghosted from it... it would be interesting RP to see how they ghosted from a tickle yet not the game's place to tell the PO how to RP it. I realize that is taking it to extreme but the general idea is... let chars not the game define RP as much as possible.

[AlexRose]

You can still rp #me blows a gentle wind, like you can now. Clearly you can't use the engine for that though or it WILL blow the person away.

It's just guidelines for what to know what to do. We all know what happens if you hit someone with a sword, or if you walk in a fire, but how many times have you teleported rl? How do you know what it's meant to feel like? Should it feel gooey, painful, tingly, nothing? Why would one mage feel like death when he's out of mana and another hops around happily? Just basic rules to show what happens when xyz happens, not: "YOUR WIND SPELLS MUST BLOW PEOPLE REALLY FAR, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A BREEZE."