- Ffoulkes wrote:
tl;dr I agree with most others; generalization of magic systems is nearly always the better route - particularly in scenarios where technology is also involved...and honestly Felarya already falls short of generalizing it's magic systems in quite a few ways by limiting the systems prematurely with 'unique' style points and catering to people's ideas of their own mixed-definition systems that warble along unused much like the rest of the universe. Hardline rules for magic systems is best left for GMs / gaming / RPing where you need a consistency factor. Felarya's adaptation methodology for the allowance of external idea invasion is fairly prohibitive to development of cohesive systems.
What you just said makes a strong point, a complicated magic system will confuse most newcomers. Though I tend to think of magic not following the basic of physics and nature. It's called magic for a reason.
Take size shifting, it completely brakes the square-cube law. And I quote from xkcd What if #77, "..our bones would be too thin to support our weight and our hearts would be unable to pump blood around our bodies...to breathe in a lungful of air would require very high airflow rates; we'd experience tornado winds all the way down our airways.
If some tech guy was to copy this, people would likely die.
Heh, this just started with me just trying to find out what element beats what, only to go into detail about the whole magic system. I know about the whole magic system of grouping like magic styles, but elementals seem to be a different magic themselves. Spirits that live in a material or energy source and then take on the abilities of that...doesn't that differ from what magic styles we have now?