Thread by @rdonoghue

Further into Mistborn, I am really boggled that I have not seen it’s style of magic in more games. It’s cadence is remarkably playable.

Specifically, the :actions: of the magic are very explicable. Describing these actions (mostly) requires only very specific, simple verbs to translate into easily described actions. That is :gold: at the table.

So, linguistically, to use magic in Mistborn, you “burn” the power source and something happens. Why does this matter? Because it is cause and effect without an intermediate step. There is no
1) draw on magic
2) do something magical

It’s just one action. That’s super robust.

In D&D, you cast a spell. But it’s not one action because you then answer the question. “Which spell?” - two discrete elements, and understanding and narrating one gives no insight into the other.

Same is true in any system that is “spend [mana/blood/whatever] to use [power]”, albeit on a smaller scale.

Super powers have a similar simplicity of action, but lack the constraints that make magic something interesting - what magic can’t do is at least as important as what it does.

Anyway, this has maybe shed a little light on something that always felt different about Amber’s powers (Though there are other factors there too) and given me a tool I absolutely must try out.

(Also, this is pitched I to fine contrast for me because it is the reverse of the great struggle - for me - of doing a planeswalker RPG. The verbs of the magic there are sooooper muddled.)

(Which is part of why i think one of the ways to handle a planeswalker RPG is as a supers game, where magic is just the excuse for what is really an anything goes system.

And I MAY have looked at the SCRPG thoughtfully in this regard)