shevek
May 23rd, 2000, 03:35 PM
Dragonlance is perhaps the most blatantly bad (from what I'm told.) I am not familiar enough with Dungeons and Dragons to
say for a fact, but from what I've seen, the magic system in the books relies strictly on the game mechanics, which I suppose is okay if you like the game, but pretty sad if you do not. I did not
Yep, it was based on the D&D magic system. But it was done so very badly. While the D&D system is notoriously lacking, it's not that dull.
Anyway, incorporating magic is one of the most difficult things. Look at Feist: In his later books horribly failing to balance magic (the Pug syndrome: "I have it but can't use it"). I have yet to see a consistant higher magic world with closely described and balanced magic. Jordan is quite good, limiting magic through the "taint" and the "forgotten art" (old concepts though), but we'll see how it ends.
[This message has been edited by shevek (edited May 24, 2000).]
say for a fact, but from what I've seen, the magic system in the books relies strictly on the game mechanics, which I suppose is okay if you like the game, but pretty sad if you do not. I did not
Yep, it was based on the D&D magic system. But it was done so very badly. While the D&D system is notoriously lacking, it's not that dull.
Anyway, incorporating magic is one of the most difficult things. Look at Feist: In his later books horribly failing to balance magic (the Pug syndrome: "I have it but can't use it"). I have yet to see a consistant higher magic world with closely described and balanced magic. Jordan is quite good, limiting magic through the "taint" and the "forgotten art" (old concepts though), but we'll see how it ends.
[This message has been edited by shevek (edited May 24, 2000).]

