Legend and Common magic: Who uses it?

[danskmacabre]

I've recently started running the Legend core game (meaning not Elric which I have historically used).

Funnily enough, I've never really run Runequest in it's core form before, it's always been some sort of Add on system, such as Elric.

Anyway, I'm not that keen on the whole common magic thing that everyone seems to have access to.

I prefer magic to to rarer and really only available to magic specialists.
I know this is a sort of hang on from the days when Legend was Runequest and part of Glorantha, where magic seems to be pretty common.

If you've run Legend in it's core form, do you use or allow Common magic?
Or do you ban it, or something in between (such as no common magic in character gen or whatever)?

 

[DamonJynx]

I prefer, when it is allowed in my games, to only have it available to specialist magic users (Divine/Sorcery/Shaman) and guilds, e.g. various craft guilds or such like - with guild specific spells taught, and only to members of journeyman rank and above - not to every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I don't believe everyone should be able to cast magic, it cheapens it too much IMO.

 

[danskmacabre]

I agree about the cheapens magic thing.


So you allow a divine/sorceror/Spirit magic user to also take Common magic?

 

[skoll]

It all boils down to the setting. In the end, you as the GM decide how common magic is in your game.

I can easily get behind the idea of S&S-type of worlds, where magic is rare. But being a long time Glorantha fan (and having an on-going campaign there now) I also like the idea, that all characters - pretty much all sentient beings - know magic. It's just different.

 

[DamonJynx]

Yeah, they use it to the betterment of their communities, blessing this and that, giving a slight edge to temple, clan and household guards/warriors and craftsmen. They don't have access to all spells, just a select few they feel are appropriate.

 

[Bifford]

Skoll beat me to the punch - It really depends on what setting you are plugging into Legend!

If you are running a fantasy/S&S game then common magic fits in nicely. If you're running a Pirates/Steampunk gamesthen not-so-much.

My Legend: Ancient Stones system (Homebrew) uses Common Magic extensively. HOWEVER I tie the spells allowed to their PROFESSION (or background - a woodsman brought up by a elementalist may well learn a spell or two from them!)

So a blacksmith would have absolutely no recourse to take Darkwall, but a thief would.
A Thief would have no reason to have Frostbite, but a Elementalist of Water would.

If, during character gen a player wants a spell I don't think fits with their character they have to justify it to me and I'll agree or disagree depending on that.

So yes, left to a completely open choice as to what magic your character has then I agree it's far too powerful. Tied in to their profession (or background) it is much more manageable and realistic.

 

[soltakss]

Depends on the setting really.

In Glorantha, everyone would have access to Common Magic, even those in Theistic and Wizardry areas - I treat them as Cantrips.

In a medium magic setting, some people will have access to Common Magic, normally as part of a cult or part of a family/guild secret.

In a low magic setting, very few people would have access to it - it would not be Common then.

I do think that not all common magic is available to everyone, even in high-magic settings. Trolls would have different Common Magic to Dwarves and Solars would have different Common Magic to Praxians.

I am definitely in favour of each Profession having access to certain Common Magic spells.

 

[danskmacabre]

Yeah I know in Glorantha, magic is much more common, so as has been pointed out, it's setting appropriate.

I personally prefer magic to be more rare and mysterious rather than something pretty much anyone can do. But it's a matter of taste rather than one view is better than another.

Thanks for the replies, it's interesting to see how others handle things with common magic.

 

[Prime_Evil]

An important difference between Sorcery and Common Magic is that while Sorcery treats magic as a structured discipline, Common Magic tends to have a more pragmatic focus. It doesn't offer a coherent theoretical or conceptual framework, but rather provides a patchwork of practical techniques for achieving different magical effects. It covers everything from the folk magic of the local village witch or hedge wizard right up to the secret techniques handed down within craft guilds and secret societies. These bodies of arcane lore lack the intellectual rigour and emphasis on self-discipline found in sorcery. They trade the flexibility provided by being able to manipulate magical energies in complex ways for the ability to do generate simple magical effects immediately. That's why Common Magic offers no equivalent for the Manipulation skill - it's not sophisticated enough to support complex spellcasting techniques. Depending upon the needs of your campaign, you might choose to treat Common Magic as a degenerate form of Sorcery or a remnant of some earlier stage in the evolution of magical lore. It's entirely up to you.

 

[Tias]

I'm working on a homebrew setting now that doesn't have Common Magic -as a skill-. Common spells are renamed/reskinned and included in the various grimoires and cast with the Lore (Grimoire) skill instead. It made little sense for me to have a character be able to cast sorcery, and then have to put points in another, secondary magic skill to also cast a few common magic spells appropriate to their grimoire..

 

[soltakss]

That would make sense - that makes them Cantrips in the normal sense - little magic spells known by sorcerers.

 

[Tias]

I still face the problem op "spell power", though. Common Magic has a neat system where some spells are progressive or learned at a fixed magnitude, but Sorcery must be Manipulated.

I wonder why the entire common/sorcery system was not just a set of grimoires, that could be learned as progressive if you wanted more power, or fixed if not applicable. Apart from the full-related reason (to give different sets of magic for commoners and sorcerors) it just seems clunky and unnecessary.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I wonder why the entire common/sorcery system was not just a set of grimoires, that could be learned as progressive if you wanted more power, or fixed if not applicable. Apart from the full-related reason (to give different sets of magic for commoners and sorcerors) it just seems clunky and unnecessary.

I think in part this is an artefact that has survived from the RQ III era, but it also helps to distinuish the flavour of the two systems of magic. Practitioners of Common Magic are rarely professional spellcasters, while Sorcerers frequently are. Progressive spells provided by Common Magic are useful, but lack the flexibility of a spell cast by a Sorcerer who is skilled in Manipulation.

 

[Carew]

I wonder why the entire common/sorcery system was not just a set of grimoires, that could be learned as progressive if you wanted more power, or fixed if not applicable. Apart from the full-related reason (to give different sets of magic for commoners and sorcerors) it just seems clunky and unnecessary.

Because common magic isn't sorcery, isn't meant to be sorcery and is therefore handled in a different way to sorcery? It might be that your game setting doesn't have sorcery at all, but does have spirit magic and divine magic and common magic? Because common magic might be the only magical type available? I don;'t think the problem lies with the rules for common magic at all. Its different to sorcery and so needs to be handled differently. The problem is that in your setting you want to handle common magic slightly differently and your having to adapt the existing rules to make it work in the way you want. That doesn't make common magic or its rules clunky or unnecessary. What your trying to do is fine BTW, and I like the idea of common spells being cast under a grimoire, but that doesn't mean that common spells shouldv've been written like that in first place.

I also think that common magic gets overpowered in Legend. In Runequest 6 the spells really are a lot simpler and lot more limited in effect and better for it, I think.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I also think that common magic gets overpowered in Legend. In Runequest 6 the spells really are a lot simpler and lot more limited in effect and better for it, I think.

Keep in mind that Common Magic was Battle Magic in the earlier editions of Runequest and pretty much all of the spells had a combat focus. MRQ II / Legend was heading in the right direction, but represents an evolutionary step between earlier conceptions and RQ 6 - we were referring to Common Magic as folk magic in these forums well before RQ 6 came out, but it took that book to finally shift the focus of "Common Magic" away from combat entirely.

IMHO, the big problem with Common Magic in Legend is the existence of progressive spells that increase the caster's chance with skills - these are unbalancing and cheapen the amount of time and effort required to improve mundane skills. Suddenly any adventurer who knows the right spell can be better at a given skill than one who invested all of his or her points into learning that skill the hard way. RQ 6 gets around this issue by allow craftsmen to produce amazing works has a long history in folklore and fantasy fiction. I've toyed with a couple of alternative approaches - including one where the the spells don't increase the caster's chance to use a skill but rather improve the caster's chance to achieve a critical success with their existing skill level - but I still haven't found any solution that's entirely satisfactory.

 

[Carew]

Keep in mind that Common Magic was Battle Magic in the earlier editions of Runequest and pretty much all of the spells had a combat focus. MRQ II / Legend was heading in the right direction, but represents an evolutionary step between earlier conceptions and RQ 6 - we were referring to Common Magic as folk magic in these forums well before RQ 6 came out, but it took that book to finally shift the focus of "Common Magic" away from combat entirely.

Oh I know that. I never did play the early Runequests but my cousin (who got me into gaming) was a big Glorantha nut and I looked through his boxed sets of Runequest stuff so I know the history and angles.

IMHO, the big problem with Common Magic in Legend is the existence of progressive spells that increase the caster's chance with skills - these are unbalancing and cheapen the amount of time and effort required to improve mundane skills.

Yeah! Completely agree. I got no problem with common magic and giving bonuses and buffs but thats for Glorantha and not every setting so there needs to be a subtler approach with RQ6 gives.

Suddenly any adventurer who knows the right spell can be better at a given skill than one who invested all of his or her points into learning that skill the hard way.

Great point.

RQ 6 gets around this issue by allow craftsmen to produce amazing works has a long history in folklore and fantasy fiction. I've toyed with a couple of alternative approaches - including one where the the spells don't increase the caster's chance to use a skill but rather improve the caster's chance to achieve a critical success with their existing skill level - but I still haven't found any solution that's entirely satisfactory.

That's a cool idea. Why not make it simple, so that if you cast Common Magic spell X your crit level goes from 10% to either 30% or 40%? Everything else stays the same, but would have interesting impacts on opposed rolls and even in combat? You'd probably wanna leave at no more than 30% or you'll get some gonzo combat maneuver issues, but its a cool idea.

 

[danskmacabre]

I'm currently working on a sort of Hexcrawl type RQ/Legend campaign, to be run via Roll20.

I've been in 2 minds about whether to use Common magic, but under closer scrutiny, some alarm bells are going off.
The main spell that concerns me is protection, which gives a point of Armor in every location per magnitude.
That seems like a game breaker to me.

Basically most, if not all the combat orientated spells seem like too much and have game balance issues.

I've been thinking of saying that Common magic is no longer available in this world, the knowledge was lost, but the knowledge is scattered scattered about in ruins etc, etc to be re-discovered.

I might introduce Common magic slowly, but only the weaker stuff perhaps, certainly at first and see how it goes.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Protection (or similar sorcery, or divine magic, or whatever type of magic) isn't a "game-breaker" if weapon enhancing spells are also available.

The rules are a "tool-box", designed to cover as many various styles of game-play as possible. GMs aren't required to use everything just because it's in the book... if it doesn't work for a particular setting, don't use it (or change it).

 

[DamonJynx]

The rules are a "tool-box", designed to cover as many various styles of game-play as possible. GMs aren't required to use everything just because it's in the book... if it doesn't work for a particular setting, don't use it (or change it).

100% agree.

 

[danskmacabre]

Protection (or similar sorcery, or divine magic, or whatever type of magic) isn't a "game-breaker" if weapon enhancing spells are also available.

It is in my opinion, as well as the bladesharps and all the rest like that. For common magic, that's VERY powerful.
And I never said Divine, Sorcery etc was game breaking. They are specific magics and aren't designed to be straight forward to learn, use or cast.

I could just add a proviso on the end of every one of my posts being "IMO" of course if that makes it easier.

The rules are a "tool-box", designed to cover as many various styles of game-play as possible. GMs aren't required to use everything just because it's in the book... if it doesn't work for a particular setting, don't use it (or change it).

I said that in my previous post that I'd go through the common magic and use what I thought was appropriate.