Why is magic so strong in most RPGs?

[Absinthe]

I think a large part of the problem is just a poor ability to envision a mystical setting. There is an excessive tendency to turn magic into a discrete force that can only be commanded by the vaunted magic-users who seem to demote magic to a grab-box of powers and the occasional ritual while everyone else has no superhuman ability at all. Usually when you deal with mythology even mundane people had ways of interacting with mystic forces, although perhaps not that well, and even simple things like oaths, a king's command, sacred rites, particularly foul misconduct, folk curses, significant days (solstices, stellar alignments, holy days, etc.), and so forth would have supernatural implications and effects. Mythic warriors were usually capable of extraordinary feats that cross the line into the supernatural, frequently by overcoming mystical trials, but also through battlecries that could sweep a battlefield and feats of prowess that defy reason, like being able to divert a river with bare hands or something, having extraordinarily good senses, significant dreams, an unusual ability, rites of strength and/or endurance that give them the ability to shrug off what should be mortal wounds naked, gaining power just from eating a bear's heart in a ritually prepared way or something, turning into beasts, and so on. So there's a lot more shit to work with than we see in most fantasy RPGs.

Tbh, that's one of the things the Witcher series handled a bit better, because it wasn't just copying from western fantasy but also a lot of traditional folklore and various mythologies, so it featured various ways that things like curses and mystical effects could interact with ordinary folk without a wizard or similar behind it and how the line between alchemy and magic could be blurred as well as the line between folk superstition and actually effective methods of minor supernatural interaction.

A lot of modern fantasy ultimately draws inspiration from things like D&D, and D&D at its roots was a wargame that turned into a dungeon-crawling simulator into a general fantasy role-playing system (although in all honesty it is still a dungeon-crawling system, considering how D&D's mechanics are almost all about combat, with everything else being handled as a clear afterthought) which created a more perfunctory implementation of magic where mystical abilities are more the sole domain of mages.

Now, you don't need to lift all this kind of stuff just to have decent warriors or something, but my point is there's a lot more to doing a fantasy setting than having magic as a discrete set of powers for the magical ones where the rest are handicapped by the rules of a mundane world, and that kind of conceptualization probably plays a pretty big role in these design issues where mage-types get all the awesome powers and everyone else looks like a scrub. In the end, a lot of it really goes back to the example D&D set and the people who just built on top of it instead of reexamining what makes a good fantasy setting, a problem that's also worsened by the fact that D&D's wizards are basically gods that can do whatever the fuck they want because they readily get all kinds of magic, instead of taking a nuanced approach to magic proficiencies.

 

[Lizard]

Clearly segregation is the answer.

 

[Pulse]

I love your guys answers so far, on the conceptual/philosophical/historical reasons behind why magic came out to be so strong in computer RPGs.

I'm wondering on the practical side as well, say you're a developer and you are creating a new RPG, is it hard to balance strong melee classes with too many abilities, or is it lack of imagination/time to add those in the first place?

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

That's ridiculous from a historical standpoint because colleges etc. only came into existence during like the 1700's at the earliest.

Colleges have been in existence since the Middle Ages. Oxford for instance was founded in the 11th century.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[Lyric Suite]

A request to elaborate what are fantasy warrior are in concept?

What they are is essentially analogous to what would be possible in real life and thus not fantastic.

Conan may appear to be unusually powerful for a human being but he is within the realm of what is possible in reality as Howard understood it. Boromir too is just as strong as any man could be in real life.

So the limit of a fantasy warrior is what is possible in real life, where as the limit of the magic powers of a wizard is only based on what a given author or creator thinks is best for the story or setting, but technically there is no limit because it's all made up anyway.

 

[Lyric Suite]

And the thing RPGs don't get right about wizards is that knowledge in a medieval fantasy settings is a scarce commodity.

Bit of a moot point since the whole wizards = scholars thing is a modern phenomenon anyway.

Wizard is essentially a variant of "wiseman" or "philosopher." So essentially, it is referring to people who were scholars and kept track of knowledge. It's in the etymology
https://www.etymonline.com/word/wizard

Historically speaking all magic was considered satanic, hence the pulpy "evil sorcerer" archetype. Let's not forget that Merlin is a cambion i.e. a half-demon. No scholar at all, a seer if anything.
This is more of a medieval thing. Moreover, "sorcerer" refers more to people who specifically conjured spirits. Other words for people who fulfill such purposes would be "necromancer" (person who conjures spirits of dead people) or "Shaman"/"medicine man" (often uses drugs to contact spirits, i.e. use of Peyote or Ayahuasca to contact spirits). The association is more blurred because many wizards in the medieval era like John Dee, Rene Descartes, and Isaac Newton (he was an alchemist) for example were also mystics or sorcerers.

I think John Dee is the prototype of the fantasy wizard more than anyone else.

 

[Lizard]

The game designer doesn't have to worry about the classes keeping up with each other if there is only one class archetype you can play.

An evil wizard in a fighter only game stays a mystical and fearsome final boss. You could have most of the combat be martial vs martial/monsters, while the main quest is figuring out how to take on a foe that can wipe you out before you get anywhere near him.
Rogue classes would be most fun doing non-combat activities, and stealth tends to suck in games not built around it. No need to balance traps in a dungeon around parties that might not have a rogue to detect/disarm them. Fantasy Indiana Jones would be fun.
Mages could also have more non-combat focus in addition to insane magic duels in a game where the designer doesn't have to worry about other classes being balanced enough to stay relevant endgame.

I don't know how you would keep martial classes viable without making them godly/giving them magic tools/nerfing mages. In a high fantasy game where imagination trumps strict rules that is. I'm ok with mages being more powerful and fighter being hard mode, but isn't a mages power always gonna be somewhat constrained by what other classes can do? Particularly in a game where you can play any class, and even use no magic users. Too many developers are afraid of punishing the player, or even letting them become overpowered.

 

[Absinthe]

Clearly segregation is the answer.

That's basically the problem lmao. The magical and mundane are too sharply divided, rendering the latter mostly victims at the hands of the former, who are the exclusive wielders of the right to break the laws of reality. If you're doing a fantasy setting, a realism tax for all non-mages can actually cause your storyworld to make less sense.

I'm wondering on the practical side as well, say you're a developer and you are creating a new RPG, is it hard to balance strong melee classes with too many abilities, or is it lack of imagination/time to add those in the first place?

I'm generally of the opinion that if you're too lazy to balance combat, you probably shouldn't make a combat-focused game in the first place, which seems to be a depressingly common problem among RPGs. Anyway, achieving perfect balance may be difficult, but achieving better balance than the average mainstream RPG and adding some options that aren't boring as hell is fairly easy. The main problem I think is really just a lack of imagination and people resorting to derivative design because they only imagine variations on preexisting things. It's a shockingly common problem that people seem to think "if there was a better way of doing this people would've done it already so we should keep doing it like this because the alternative is too impractical or people would've done it already." Basically a logic that assumes whatever the hell you see right now cannot particularly be improved upon, which is most often false.

If you play a game like Deus Ex you'll see tons of content that other RPG developers would pretend is too difficult, too impractical, and too unrewarding to implement. (Deus Ex is not a fantasy game, btw.)

The game designer doesn't have to worry about the classes keeping up with each other if there is only one class archetype you can play.

An evil wizard in a fighter only game stays a mystical and fearsome final boss. You could have most of the combat be martial vs martial/monsters, while the main quest is figuring out how to take on a foe that can wipe you out before you get anywhere near him.
Rogue classes would be most fun doing non-combat activities, and stealth tends to suck in games not built around it. No need to balance traps in a dungeon around parties that might not have a rogue to detect/disarm them. Fantasy Indiana Jones would be fun.
Mages could also have more non-combat focus in addition to insane magic duels in a game where the designer doesn't have to worry about other classes being balanced enough to stay relevant endgame.

I don't know how you would keep martial classes viable without making them godly/giving them magic tools/nerfing mages. In a high fantasy game where imagination trumps strict rules that is. I'm ok with mages being more powerful and fighter being hard mode, but isn't a mages power always gonna be somewhat constrained by what other classes can do? Particularly in a game where you can play any class, and even use no magic users. Too many developers are afraid of punishing the player, or even letting them become overpowered.

Honestly giving martial classes a toehold into demigodhood isn't that bad of an idea, but there are plenty of ways to give martials disruption tools and defenses against magic, as well as stunts like tripping, grappling, shoving, throwing, disarming enemies, removing their shields, etc. that can give a martial more interesting options than just hitting stuff, as well as items like throwing nets, javelins, bombs, etc. - assuming you ensure there is actually a point to doing these things, of course. And if you want it's always possible to have a barbarian out-fireball the local wizard because the barbarian fireball consists of tossing exploding barrels at enemies. Making barricades and positioning meaningful can do a lot to make mundanes feel better if you give them appropriate tools to interact with these things, especially with the addition of environmental hazards, traps, and the ability to alter terrain a bit (even if it's just setting up a barricade or magic wall or giving someone a way up a ledge).

It would probably help to make it so that magic is more effective with setup from martials instead of magic just being something that can single-handedly wipe enemies without any particular investment or cost associated, and then you can play with synergies and disruption strategies in ways that are quite fun.

 

[Cryomancer]

Balancefags complain about arcane casters but you rarely see them complaining about divine casters.

Divine casters can cast spells equivalent to arcane, has access to healing, better bab(3e)/thac0(2e), better armor, better saves, dont need expensive scrolls(●●●).

 

[Absinthe]

The fuck are you smoking? Clerics and druids in D&D are total fucking bullshit, but not every RPG has them and even the ones that do do not typically implement them in the over-the-top way D&D does. That's the reason you don't hear much about them. Because yes, in D&D a well-played cleric is basically a wizard in plate armor that has better hitpoints, an ability to beat enemies to death with regular weapons that can go toe to toe with dedicated warriors, healing magics, and access to every single spell his class is capable of casting without needing to fill out a spellbook like wizards do. Druids are similarly stupid.

It's just that you're taking a very D&D-centric approach to the subject, when we're talking about fantasy cRPGs in general rather than just D&D games.

 

[Lacrymas]

Not only is that a D&D-centric approach, it's also only a feature in 3rd edition and beyond. As to answer the question in the op - it's because designers rarely put meaningful limits on magic. If I were to create a setting in which arcane magic exists, I'd make it so it can't directly harm people or destroy objects, i.e. no damage spells will be in the repertoire.

 

[Spectacle]

NO, could be like :

Barbarian at low level : "I attack with my axe"
Barbarian at mid level : "I try to decapitate his head, then grab his head and throw at the enemy as an improvised weapon"

And at high level, giving all types of crazy martial shit to martial classes, allowing them to literally throw trees and run at inhuman speeds.

Barbarian at high level: "I send my army to conquer his lands, to see his men driven before me and hear the lamentations of their women."

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

Wizard is essentially a variant of "wiseman" or "philosopher." So essentially, it is referring to people who were scholars and kept track of knowledge. It's in the etymology
https://www.etymonline.com/word/wizard

Neither wisemen nor philosophers are "scholars". The etymology also doesn't equate the two. But it includes this:

The word use is older than 1550. It refers to "philosophers" or "sages." Both words that refer to "Wise men." The term "wise men" in ancient Greek was abandoned by philosophers because it had negative connotations. Philosophers in particular was a term often used for scholars, i.e. Archemedes, Aristotle. In Eastern sources this was even more the case as Magi were the Persian equivalent (emperors would keep many around and they were prestigious important people) as they would literally be useful scholars, astrologers, etc.

As a slang word meaning "excellent" it is recorded from 1922.

Bruh that's wizard af

The slang was "whiz". Not wizard. Someone would be called a "whiz." You're also misusing the word and using negroid abuse of the English language. I'd avoid using their improper speech.

An individual wizard might undertake his own personal study into the magical but that's not really scholarship as we understand it today. In many medieval fantasy settings there's shit like wizard schools or Da Great Library (c) and such which closely resemble modern universities (or libraries in fact). That's ridiculous from a historical standpoint because colleges etc. only came into existence during like the 1700's at the earliest. What's funny is that it was MARTIALS who went to school back in medieval times. Zweihänder Landsknechts for example had a degree in fighting basically. Haven't seen that in an RPG ever.

Not when the word predates 1550 and didn't take up reference to magic until after the 1550's.

Rene Descartes

Descartes wasn't a wizard, he was French.

Rene Descartes was a wizard.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

Alchemists, magi, soothsayers, prophets, scholars, wizards, doctors.

The modern idea of a wizard descends from learned men who went by all these names, blending some combination of religion, occult practice and/or science. The idea of giving things specific names to fit specific criteria wasn't a rule in the past. Many such cases where one of these men would be merely a man who knew more of mathematics, medicine or philosophy than any one else in the area.

 

[Absinthe]

Not only is that a D&D-centric approach, it's also only a feature in 3rd edition and beyond. As to answer the question in the op - it's because designers rarely put meaningful limits on magic. If I were to create a setting in which arcane magic exists, I'd make it so it can't directly harm people or destroy objects, i.e. no damage spells will be in the repertoire.

Even 2E AD&D Priests have some very potent magic, played right. 3E did take the stupidity to new levels though.

 

[Cryomancer]

Not only is that a D&D-centric approach, it's also only a feature in 3rd edition and beyond. As to answer the question in the op - it's because designers rarely put meaningful limits on magic. If I were to create a setting in which arcane magic exists, I'd make it so it can't directly harm people or destroy objects, i.e. no damage spells will be in the repertoire.

Even 2E AD&D Priests have some very potent magic, played right. 3E did take the stupidity to new levels though.

In 2E, they are limited to tier 7 magic.

But did had very powerful magic. For eg, a arcane necromancer only get access to animate dead at lv 9 spending a tier 5 spell. A priest necromancer, could get animate dead at lv 5 as a tier 3 spell with no need for scrolls and spellbooks to prepare the spell.

 

[Absinthe]

Sure, they are limited to tier 7 magic, but their tier 7 magic includes spells like Gate, Impervious Sanctity of Mind, Timelessness, Death Pact, etc. Their tier 6 magic includes spells like Reverse Time. And there's loads more stuff. With the right spells and preparation their spellcasting does a pretty powerful job.

 

[Harthwain]

Magic is best when it's blatantly overpowered compared to a non-magic user imo. For a party-based game, where magician and non-magician are meant to be equal options, that doesn't quite work... But a game where the main PC is a magician, who can hire less powerful non-magicians as help, for a party, would be cool, so you could keep the non-magic parts of the game realistic instead of getting lategame warriors who could kill 10s of lesser opponents just by somehow being so good at fighting.

This could be a cool premise for a game, in my opinion. I mean, party-based games in which everyone is important part of the team are commonplace. But a party-based game where you openly admit that your mage is the most important character and others are literally expendable meatshields? I can't recall many games with this kind of concept.

 

[Cryomancer]

Divine casters also has more spells which requires no save and bypass MR like Fire Storm and they get their best spells at lv 14.

But honestly, sadly balance cultism is making casters really lackluster.

Not only in CRPG's, look to D&D 4e and PF2e to have a picture.

I really don't wanna OwlCat moving into PF2e. If they will stop with PF1e, they should move to a retroclone.

 

[Sykar]

The fuck are you smoking? Clerics and druids in D&D are total fucking bullshit, but not every RPG has them and even the ones that do do not typically implement them in the over-the-top way D&D does. That's the reason you don't hear much about them. Because yes, in D&D a well-played cleric is basically a wizard in plate armor that has better hitpoints, an ability to beat enemies to death with regular weapons that can go toe to toe with dedicated warriors, healing magics, and access to every single spell his class is capable of casting without needing to fill out a spellbook like wizards do. Druids are similarly stupid.

It's just that you're taking a very D&D-centric approach to the subject, when we're talking about fantasy cRPGs in general rather than just D&D games.

In 3rd ED. In 2nd ED it was better balanced with clerical spells being limited to 7th level while arcane spells going up to 9th to compensate for the wizard's lack of armor and HP. Specialization was more interesting in 2nd ED giving not just bonus to spell casting slots.

 

[Desiderius]

A bunch of nerds who spent their time reading books all day instead of working out are really happy that characters who spent all their time studying books are the strongest. Now, the people making those rpgs are these nerds who did nothing but read book all the time.

Not anymore. Now they read reddit.

Those were the good old days.

 

[Cryomancer]

In 3rd ED. In 2nd ED it was better balanced with clerical spells being limited to 7th level while arcane spells going up to 9th to compensate for the wizard's lack of armor and HP. Specialization was more interesting in 2nd ED giving not just bonus to spell casting slots.

And different classes required different XP to level up. That was a huge point in Dark Sun, where preservers level up slowly while defilers can level up extremely fast.

 

[Sykar]

I forgot another aspect that is never really implemented, making certain types of powerful magic dangerous to the user. In Realms of Arkania P&P for example, trying to conjure demons can not just fail, but even cost you your life. Or worse you get dragged down to hell for some "fun" times.

 

[mondblut]

Balancefags complain about arcane casters but you rarely see them complaining about divine casters.

Divine casters can cast spells equivalent to arcane, has access to healing, better bab(3e)/thac0(2e), better armor, better saves, dont need expensive scrolls(●●●).

Divine spells mostly suck though. Beyond mandatory healing, a cleric is just an underpowered fighter 99% of the time.

 

[Semiurge]

A limited number of casts, run out and you have to rest before you can cast again. Doesn't sound strong. This is what's baffling in the Eye of Beholder series, perhaps all D&D games.