When discussing how magic should work mechanically in a game, its sometimes brought up that in common literature or fairytales, magic is undpredictable and there is a desire to replicate it during gameplay. Things like spellpoints are poo-pooed for being too rote and mundane.
To that my question is....When is magic actually unreliable? From my personal experience with media and fairytales (especially russian fairytales), magic is EXTREMLY reliable. Its just generally not accessible to the main protagonist. If baba yaga wants to make a skull that glows with a light that burns away your flesh, she doesn't consult a wild magic table, or have somesort of side effect. It just works 100% of the time. If a blessed doll does all your chores for you: It does all your chores for you. Even intentionally impossible chores designed to fail you. If your magic and your man is whining because he lacks a army of undersea dwelling warriors, you get him that army of warriors. No spell slots or spellpoints or nuthin.
There might be a condition: Don't do X or spell will wear off. Or you need Z ingredient or Y action. But X, Y, and Z are generally very unchanging and specific.
Going by pulp stories, magic is usually drawn from some powerful being or god with interests in the world. Kragnal the obliterator lets you turn into a giant snake as long as you have his pendant and are his favored priest. The difficult part is the bargain itself or finding resources that won't also horribly curse you. The gods whims may be unreliable, but the magic generally is.
At times magic isn't drawn from a being but is more like a challenging science. But even then if you know the runes, you know the magic.
So taking this into games, if you want 'magical' feeling magic, that the players have reliable access to, without a bunch of GM fiat, is add some chaos when the spell is first developed, not each time its cast. Maybe fireballs don't work on creatures that smell of garlic. Maybe Kragnal expects of you to sacrifice 100 goats in a gruesome way inside of his temple each full moon if you want to keep your mind control abilities.
This is me largely brainstorming however. Maybe you have different ideas/fairytales/literature. I know in some eastern tales its more just 'Nuh uh, my powers are more OP then yours, so my Turtle Demi-god makes your demon king eat his pants'.
Yes, this is a good point.
Magical mistakes/mishaps/random errors are quite rare in literature but I can think of some influential examples:
- Lieber (IIRC the GM fails reading a scroll or something).
- Jack Vance.
- Ursula LeGuin (the Wizard of Earthsea is about a spell gone wrong).
Also, the D&D cartoon and Terry Pratchet have some comical examples; and Harry Potter IIRC.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 21, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Yes, this is a good point.
Magical mistakes/mishaps/random errors are quite rare in literature but I can think of some influential examples:
- Lieber (IIRC the GM fails reading a scroll or something).
- Jack Vance.
- Ursula LeGuin (the Wizard of Earthsea is about a spell gone wrong).
Also, the D&D cartoon and Terry Pratchet have some comical examples; and Harry Potter IIRC.
Outside of HP I haven't read any of those, but Id guess that sounds like more a failure of execution, not that the magic itself is unstable. No more unstable then a chemical compound improperly mixed/administered.
If you want to replicate stories, play a game with narrative mechanics. They will put narrative limits (often metacurrency spends) on magic rather than randomness. This means magic will be extremely reliable, but can only be used when narratively appropriate. Needless to say, this doesn't mix well with players and GMs that are used to traditional games.
The problem with magic in literature is that more than any single plot device it does what the story needs it to do with little regard to any stated rules. After all, "a wizard did it."
I will suggest Patricia A McKillop's The Book of Atrix Wolfe which is about a prince studying to be a wizard who is called home and brings home a spell book written by a mad wizard. All of the spells are mislabeled and none of them do what they claim. It's probably her most accessible work.
I'd suggest that the core problem in this debate is what people mean when they say "Reliable". Most people making the Magic Is Unreliable argument aren't actually arguing that it isn't reliable. They're saying that it's not safe, convenient, cheap and so forth. And in most depictions of magic in legends and literature this is precisely the case.
Usually the driving force is to distinguish Magic from Science. If becoming a Mage is as easy and safe as becoming a Blacksmith then every village will have one and minor magic items will be as common as items made of iron. This takes away some of the mystique of spells and also changes the setting tone- worlds like Eberron are actually the logical end result of widespread and convenient magic.
I do hate the idea of spell failure as a game mechanic though. I very much prefer a spell control mechanic. If a roll is needed then it's not to see if the spell worked- it's to see if the spell worked the way the caster intended.
When looking at the Barbarians of Lemuria magic system this is the approach I used. Failure on a casting roll didn't mean the spell fizzled and did nothing, it meant that I would "Monkey's Paw" the intentions of the player casting the spell to make effects somehow detrimental to the caster. So a lowly apprentice could cast a spell to return his slain lover to life, but there's a very high chance he'd fail the roll and end up with her as an undead horror with a hunger for human flesh or that her soul remained in the Underworld while a demon walked around in her once-more-living body.
I like the idea that mechanics don't describe the limits of what a spellcaster can do- they describe the limits of what a spellcaster can do safely. In D&D terms this is like saying "Sure, your 1st-Level Wizard can try to cast Wish. You just have a less than 10% chance of getting what you want from it."
Quote from: Tantavalist on February 22, 2022, 08:17:00 AMWhen looking at the Barbarians of Lemuria magic system this is the approach I used. Failure on a casting roll didn't mean the spell fizzled and did nothing, it meant that I would "Monkey's Paw" the intentions of the player casting the spell to make effects somehow detrimental to the caster.
Well thats what I disagree with unless your only covering inexperienced Wizards. If a spell effect can monkeys paw, there is no 'rolling' to do it right. I don't think it makes it really magical. If you use a chemistry set wrong, you can turn your skin blue and die a horrible painful death, but we don't see chemistry as magical.
Mystique is more to do with rarity and convenience, rather then 'Roll on fail' charts.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 21, 2022, 07:42:41 PM
When is magic actually unreliable?
It seems to me that magic is more likely to become unreliable whenever the magic-user in question is attempting to exceed his own current limitations. A spell to clean the house works great for the sorcerer, but not so much for the sorcerer's apprentice. Even powerful wizards "going too far" and getting consumed by their own castings seems a common a trope.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 21, 2022, 08:46:03 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on February 21, 2022, 08:44:17 PM
Yes, this is a good point.
Magical mistakes/mishaps/random errors are quite rare in literature but I can think of some influential examples:
- Lieber (IIRC the GM fails reading a scroll or something).
- Jack Vance.
- Ursula LeGuin (the Wizard of Earthsea is about a spell gone wrong).
Also, the D&D cartoon and Terry Pratchet have some comical examples; and Harry Potter IIRC.
Outside of HP I haven't read any of those, but Id guess that sounds like more a failure of execution, not that the magic itself is unstable. No more unstable then a chemical compound improperly mixed/administered.
I don't remember the exact details, but worth checking out; Vance and Lieber were huge influences on D&D, and LeGuin is mentioned in Moldvay's basic.
Quote from: Tantavalist on February 22, 2022, 08:17:00 AM
I'd suggest that the core problem in this debate is what people mean when they say "Reliable". Most people making the Magic Is Unreliable argument aren't actually arguing that it isn't reliable. They're saying that it's not safe, convenient, cheap and so forth. And in most depictions of magic in legends and literature this is precisely the case.
Usually the driving force is to distinguish Magic from Science. If becoming a Mage is as easy and safe as becoming a Blacksmith then every village will have one and minor magic items will be as common as items made of iron. This takes away some of the mystique of spells and also changes the setting tone- worlds like Eberron are actually the logical end result of widespread and convenient magic.
I do hate the idea of spell failure as a game mechanic though. I very much prefer a spell control mechanic. If a roll is needed then it's not to see if the spell worked- it's to see if the spell worked the way the caster intended.
When looking at the Barbarians of Lemuria magic system this is the approach I used. Failure on a casting roll didn't mean the spell fizzled and did nothing, it meant that I would "Monkey's Paw" the intentions of the player casting the spell to make effects somehow detrimental to the caster. So a lowly apprentice could cast a spell to return his slain lover to life, but there's a very high chance he'd fail the roll and end up with her as an undead horror with a hunger for human flesh or that her soul remained in the Underworld while a demon walked around in her once-more-living body.
I like the idea that mechanics don't describe the limits of what a spellcaster can do- they describe the limits of what a spellcaster can do safely. In D&D terms this is like saying "Sure, your 1st-Level Wizard can try to cast Wish. You just have a less than 10% chance of getting what you want from it."
This is good too - every time you cast fireball, there is a fireball... but what if your allies are nearby? Wish (and the monkey paw) is another great example.
Quote from: Zalman on February 22, 2022, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 21, 2022, 07:42:41 PM
When is magic actually unreliable?
It seems to me that magic is more likely to become unreliable whenever the magic-user in question is attempting to exceed his own current limitations. A spell to clean the house works great for the sorcerer, but not so much for the sorcerer's apprentice. Even powerful wizards "going too far" and getting consumed by their own castings seems a common a trope.
Yes, this - coincidentally, I'm writing a book on alternate magic systems for OSR games and I've changed my original idea (magic always unreliable) to "magic unreliable IF you go beyond your limits".
It fits well with the ideas that villains are a danger to the world and to themselves.
Thinking about this, I think the issue is Sanderson's First Law: the more useful magic is, the more you need to be able to understand it to maintain suspension of disbelief, but the more you understand it, the less magical it feels. It's a trade off you have to navigate, giving the reader/player a framework in which the magic is plausible but still mysterious.
As an example, D&D and similar magic systems use a set of stock spells to strike that balance: the players understand the casting mechanic — so many spells per day of such-and-such levels drawn from this or that list, with more powerful spells are higher level — but don't have to understand anything about how the actual spells themselves work.
Back to the main topic: making magic unreliable or dangerous seems like a quick and dirty way of shifting the balance back toward "less useful, more mysterious." Part of Sanderson's First Law is that you don't need an understanding of why magic causes problems, so you can have pretty much any adverse effects you want.
So you're right that there's little precedence in literature, but then RPGs have different needs than literature.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 22, 2022, 09:16:38 AM
Quote from: Tantavalist on February 22, 2022, 08:17:00 AMWhen looking at the Barbarians of Lemuria magic system this is the approach I used. Failure on a casting roll didn't mean the spell fizzled and did nothing, it meant that I would "Monkey's Paw" the intentions of the player casting the spell to make effects somehow detrimental to the caster.
Well thats what I disagree with unless your only covering inexperienced Wizards.
Which would include starting adventurers and to some extend most spellcasting PCs, particularly if trying new spells.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 22, 2022, 09:16:38 AMIf a spell effect can monkeys paw, there is no 'rolling' to do it right. I don't think it makes it really magical. If you use a chemistry set wrong, you can turn your skin blue and die a horrible painful death, but we don't see chemistry as magical.
Mystique is more to do with rarity and convenience, rather then 'Roll on fail' charts.
This is just subjective movement of goalposts. Why would a spell blowing up on a wizard's face not be "magical"? How is chemistry not "magical" in a way? Isn't chemistry just modern alchemy backed up by "science"? Just because something exists in real life and we've grown to see it as mundane cuz science has become commonplace in the modern world that doesn't mean that magic can't work in a similar fashion.
"Chemistry can make things blow up, and chemistry isn't magic, therefore things blowing up can't be magical (like multiple things can't make other things blow up)" isn't a logical statement.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 22, 2022, 10:55:29 AMSo you're right that there's little precedence in literature, but then RPGs have different needs than literature.
Yeah, a lot of this has more to do with how to handle character abilities for purposes of "It's a Game!" and related issues like "game balance" than for what works in literature when telling a story. In a story a spell is usually just a plot device that can be molded to fit the needs of the narrative at the author's whim. In a game a spell is special trick a character has to get some type of benefit in the game. They're different circumstances and environments.
I would argue that magic would be unreliable to those with insufficient skills. There are plenty of stories and myths about those who meddled with powers beyond their control and paid a steep price.
Baba Yaga can whip up a flesh-melting skull, reliably, because her Spellcraft checks are way, way higher than yours.
There is a meta issue: if magic is -too- unreliable, who really wants to use it, either in-character or out of character? There's a reason why 40k psykers -- even sanctioned psykers and astropaths -- get the side-eye from any sane Imperial citizen.
This might be relevant: https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/index.html
I particularly like this article on making game magic more closely emulate folklore magic: https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 22, 2022, 10:59:16 AMThis is just subjective movement of goalposts. Why would a spell blowing up on a wizard's face not be "magical"? How is chemistry not "magical" in a way?
Im not sure how this is moving goalposts.
Quote"Chemistry can make things blow up, and chemistry isn't magic, therefore things blowing up can't be magical (like multiple things can't make other things blow up)" isn't a logical statement.
Well Im pretty sure this is a strawman fallacy if your playing it that way.
The argument is that mystique comes from limited access and understanding. If you know the rules, even if they are skewed against you, the effect will not feel mystical. I presented that chemistry in modern day, doesn't feel mystical because we know enough of the rules.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 22, 2022, 10:55:29 AMSo you're right that there's little precedence in literature, but then RPGs have different needs than literature.
Yup.
I like SW, and SW has a 'roll to activate' mechanic, and I like it. I just don't think it makes it more mystical.
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 22, 2022, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 22, 2022, 10:55:29 AMSo you're right that there's little precedence in literature, but then RPGs have different needs than literature.
Yeah, a lot of this has more to do with how to handle character abilities for purposes of "It's a Game!" and related issues like "game balance" than for what works in literature when telling a story. In a story a spell is usually just a plot device that can be molded to fit the needs of the narrative at the author's whim. In a game a spell is special trick a character has to get some type of benefit in the game. They're different circumstances and environments.
Again, they don't have to be so different. Narrative magic systems can closely emulate the magic seen in many stories, if that's what you want. Modiphius does this in its 2d20 Conan line with its Sorcery rules.
I don't advocate using rolls for all magic in that "Save vs. Monkey's Paw" situation. How I'd use it is to have there be a point where a skill roll becomes automatic and thus the magic becomes "Activate At Will" like standard D&D spellcasting. It's reaching beyond that which needs a roll- because that's where the Mage is moving beyond what he knows well enough to use safely and is starting to invoke forces he doesn't fully understand.
But this is just a theoretical situation. Because all Mages are sane and sensible people and nowhere in the fantasy genre is it believable that they would routinely gable the lives, souls and sanity of themselves and the people around them by meddling with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know because desire or desperation drove them to it. Right? ::)
Magic in D&D related games already has unpredictability based on saves. It's not blow up in your face and turn your arm into a tentacle but it's a fail, and a fail in the way spells fail in the Conan books with our hero shaking off the effects due to increased Barbarian fitness or dodging or whatever.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 22, 2022, 11:48:03 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on February 22, 2022, 10:59:16 AMThis is just subjective movement of goalposts. Why would a spell blowing up on a wizard's face not be "magical"? How is chemistry not "magical" in a way?
Im not sure how this is moving goalposts.
Quote"Chemistry can make things blow up, and chemistry isn't magic, therefore things blowing up can't be magical (like multiple things can't make other things blow up)" isn't a logical statement.
Well Im pretty sure this is a strawman fallacy if your playing it that way.
The argument is that mystique comes from limited access and understanding. If you know the rules, even if they are skewed against you, the effect will not feel mystical. I presented that chemistry in modern day, doesn't feel mystical because we know enough of the rules.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 22, 2022, 10:55:29 AMSo you're right that there's little precedence in literature, but then RPGs have different needs than literature.
Yup.
I like SW, and SW has a 'roll to activate' mechanic, and I like it. I just don't think it makes it more mystical.
If you want mysticism, then study up real world occultism. One of the most mystical feeling magic systems I've ever come across was the alchemy system from
Enlightened Magic by Chaosium. This is because it draws directly and heavily from real world occult tradition.
RPG magic systems don't feel mystical because they don't draw on the rich traditions of occultism we have in real life. They aren't intended to have spiritual components or to be holistically integrated into the metaphysical world building, they're intended entirely as materialistic problem solving tools for players to use.
I like magic systems that work as expected when what the practitioner is doing is well within his ability. If the task is at the edge of his ability or probably too hard, then I like to have a possibility for various types of failure. Just because real life mostly works this way.
I think it's worth noting that once upon a time blacksmiths were regarded as having secret magical knowledge (ie. the trade secrets of the craft that allowed for the creation of tempered steel instead of too soft or too brittle iron) and that even into the early Renaissance what we today call science was part of what used to be called "natural magic" (interestingly enough the one type of magic NOT condemned by the medieval Church as it was based on the study and use of materials provided by God rather than calling upon or trying to command spirits).
Basically, the distinction between science and magic is a fairly modern one and may not be one necessary to make in a game. At its core, magic is just what we call a process that we can't fully explain. In the real world we call what various magicians do magic because we can't fully explain how they create their illusions. But at the same time the magician fully understands the nature of his trick and so for him it's not "magical" but using various methods including materials and psychology to baffle their audience.
For the magician, magic isn't magic, it's science.
In the same way, how many of us really understand much of the technology we use every day? I know my phone I'm typing this from has circuits, a processor, a battery, screen, etc... but I couldn't begin to explain the physics and programming behind how a touch screen takes my taps and swipes on it and is translating it into the very text you're reading. Now engineers, programmers and other experts certainly do... they're the wizards... but to me it is functionally magic (useable magic... but nothing I have the skill or knowledge to duplicate; heck there's probably no one on this planet who could build a cellphone from scratch by themselves as there are so many materials and procedures involved just in making the parts, much less assembling and programming it all).
So when it comes to games I think it's worth remembering who PoV you're looking at. While all magic is likely mysterious to the average peasant, is it just as mysterious to the magician? If it is, then magic mechanics should probably be entirely GM facing... the magician can make educated guesses, but what part of his "spell" actually produces the effect isn't known to them.
If the magic is understood by the magician then you have to accept that to the magician it isn't going to feel magical because to them its a science... only the less knowledgeable audience will call it magic (which is why I recommend if you're making your own setting that wizards among themselves NOT call it magic in the setting, but something like The Art or The Craft or just Wizardry, because its not "magic" to them).
So as with many discussions it looks like the biggest problem is defining the thing that this discussion is about- there's so many different versions of what Magic really is that there can't even be an answer to questions about it until you state what setting and magic system we're talking about.
But, regarding the comments made above...
For real-world magic I think RPGPundit's own Lion & Dragon game has one of the best examples of a magic system based on real-world beliefs.
When it comes to magic just being secret knowledge with no science/magic divide... That's actually how magic works in Tolkein, and in The One Ring which is the most faithful adaption of his works to a TTRPG. While at the upper levels there are wondrous and clearly magical things, for most "Secret Lore" effects we'd find it hard to answer whether or not what's being done is actual magic or just an impressive display of mundane skill... And the people of the setting wouldn't see the distinction if asked.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 22, 2022, 11:40:17 AM
This might be relevant: https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/index.html
I particularly like this article on making game magic more closely emulate folklore magic: https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html
Thanks, BoxCrayonTales. I ponder now about updating it with more modern examples. I haven't used it in play yet, but I'd agree that Lion & Dragon is a great example of a magic system that gets to magic feel.
Quote from: Tantavalist on February 22, 2022, 05:33:25 PM
When it comes to magic just being secret knowledge with no science/magic divide... That's actually how magic works in Tolkein, and in The One Ring which is the most faithful adaption of his works to a TTRPG. While at the upper levels there are wondrous and clearly magical things, for most "Secret Lore" effects we'd find it hard to answer whether or not what's being done is actual magic or just an impressive display of mundane skill... And the people of the setting wouldn't see the distinction if asked.
Interesting - I haven't tried The One Ring yet. This is one of the points in my essay - which contrasts with the more typical RPG approach that everything works according to modern science unless there is distinct magic involved. And that magic must be clearly defined, such that if cancelled (by an anti-magic field or dispel or similar), then thing will continue to work as by science.
One easy way I've found to explain magic as a natural process is to use an elemental magic system that draws its power from the natural world, rather than the vague "magical energy" occasionally mentioned in D&D. Dragon Prince is an example.
Or adapt the concept of qi from Taoism, which is treated as a natural phenomenon inherent to everything that requires careful training and cultivation to use.
I'm not the biggest fan of fantasy fiction around. But based on fantasy books and films I have experienced, it seems to me the "reliability" of magic is dependent upon the role the magic-user plays in a story.
I most often see the magic-user cast as the mentor, wiseman, or seer. The magic is very reliable, and provides the tools the hero needs to complete the adventure. It might come in the form of information or magical protections. It's an adventure enabler. And the magic itself has limitations that make the hero necessary. The old wizard can't just set things right with the snap of his fingers.
Most rare of what I've seen is the hero-magician. Think Luke Skywalker. Here, what seems to be happening is the things a non-magical hero would do, the D&D fighter, are simply reskinned as magic, perhaps exaggerated in the process. Here the magic may be as reliable or as unreliable as any weapon or skill.
Another type I see is the magical-fool. Think Orko. This is probably the least reliable of magic, but it can also be highly useful as this is the perfect place to couch deus ex machina.
Where I think a lot of wires get crossed in RPGs is the PCs almost necessarily must fit the second type, but the first type probably has the most source material and inspiration to draw from. I think the desire for "wild" magic comes from, well, yeah, technically we also have this third type, too. And it's fun and entertaining. Magic should be that, too. Add to that the penchant for "modern" RPG design to rely in a single consistent system for running everything, and you have a great recipe for a trainwreck.
For me, 1E ends up working in the wash. PCs generally strongly favor those spells which are essentially weapons, as best fits heroes, and pass by a lot of the spells that might best fit a seer. The spell recovery time constraint for very high level characters presents players with interesting choices.
Say you've blown all your spell slots. You only have 12 hours to rest and rememorize. This means no less than 6 hours of sleep if you want to restore up to 4th level spells. With the remaining 6 hours, you can restore 24 spell levels worth. 4/3/2/2 is roughly where Magic-Users top out in potency. If you want to memorize a 7th level spell, that means 10 hours of sleep, which only allows time to rememorize 8 spell levels. That's the 7th level spell you wanted plus a single first level spell. Something like Mass Invisibility that allows the entire party to enter some area they wouldn't have otherwise been able to make it to. Plus Identify to sort out any magic-items found. Such a high level character now is taking on more of a wiseman role than a hero-magician role.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2022, 03:42:49 PM
For the magician, magic isn't magic, it's science.
I've been chewing on this sentence, and I think it's based on a confusion. In the old days science and magic were not contrasting terms. So for a medieval-authentic magician, magic is magic
and an occult science. We think of science and magic as fundamentally opposed because science has taken on a connotation of disenchantment, and not just about magic. (See, for example, C.S. Lewis's
The Abolition of Man.) The upshot of this is that science and magic not only involve different beliefs about what does and doesn't exist but very different ways of approaching phenomena.
All of which is a bit tangential to the discussion. Fantasy magic is actually Hollywood SFX dressed up in mystical-sounding non-explanations.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 23, 2022, 01:46:08 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2022, 03:42:49 PM
For the magician, magic isn't magic, it's science.
I've been chewing on this sentence, and I think it's based on a confusion. In the old days science and magic were not contrasting terms. So for a medieval-authentic magician, magic is magic and an occult science. We think of science and magic as fundamentally opposed because science has taken on a connotation of disenchantment, and not just about magic. (See, for example, C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.) The upshot of this is that science and magic not only involve different beliefs about what does and doesn't exist but very different ways of approaching phenomena.
All of which is a bit tangential to the discussion. Fantasy magic is actually Hollywood SFX dressed up in mystical-sounding non-explanations.
I think you need to go a bit further. The alchemists were clearly proto-scientists, though it's hard to separate the science from the esoteric mysticism. But if you go back further, most magic in myths and legends goes back to natural history, then natural philosophy. A wonder-worker like Taleisin wasn't pulling mystic threads, or shaping some otherworldly force, but also wasn't engaged in the process of experimentation and refinement. Instead, it was more about deep observational and rote knowledge. That's where the "wise" comes from in wise women and wizards. Their skills or talents (not powers; that's the wrong lens) came from learning all they could about the world worked, from mentors and from their own observations and learning.
Since we're comparing things, a good analogy might be alchemy as depicted in the manga/anime Fullmetal Alchemist.
Doing simple stuff is easy. Doing more complex stuff is harder but because it's documented, it's doable. But once you start forging into uncharted waters, you'd best watch out.
I have a few general opinions on magic in RPGs:
- Wild and uncontrollable magic spells make sense given the lore in many universes, but these days is a critically over-used trope. If I encounter it in an RPG, it's almost always a hard "nope," not because it's inherently bad, but because the magic system is integral for a game's identity. Having a trite and overused explanation like "magic is uncontrollable," immediately tells me that if the game wasn't dated about 2010 or earlier, the big creative decisions were phoned in, likely in a big way.
- Uncontrolled magic is usually tied to a random table. I don't think random tables are inherently bad, but I do think they are messy game design, and they can certainly be slow.
- One of the key things I look for in a game which has a magic system is evidence the game designers understand Sanderson's Laws of Magic because this is how magic can influence storytelling without feeling cheap. Hard magic systems (like Sanderson writes and wrote his Laws of Magic for) feel much like sciences. Ultimately, I agree with the above discussions which distinguish between science and magic at the philosophical level, but one of the key things you can do in fiction is explore universes with different metaphysics. Most universes with made up religions or magic have fundamentally broken metaphysics, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing; it turns the story into an Escher painting which makes sense in a way which doesn't make sense. IMO, this paradox is what gives Star Wars so much creative potential; the Jedi and Sith are not fundamentally better because the Force is an inanimate spiritual bar magnet which can't distinguish between good and evil, so what you're seeing instead is the audience and author projecting their understanding of good and evil onto a fundamentally amoral universe.
How do I prefer magic? If you can't tell, I am a strong hard magic fan. Even if you don't explain something, there should be an explanation.
But then again, my tastes are also more in the Science Fiction direction than Fantasy. In my current homebrew system, "magic" is a series of alien psychic abilities which use dark energy to poke holes in space time to make energy flow. Dice are not involved; it's a technological ability which just happens to use brain cells rather than a visible tech gizmo.
Something else that affects the perception of magic and magicians in RPG vs. Literature is POV characters. In much of classic fantasy the Wizard was someone other than the main character, which meant that magic never had to be explained in detail. The POV character(s) see the Wizard do magic things and that's just them being a Wizard. One of the reasons A Wizard of Earthsea was so influential was that it was one of the first novels to successfully reverse this trend and show how magic worked from the point of view of someone who lived and breathed it.
With RPGs the magic is generally in the hands of players who have to understand the mechanics. More than that, unless you're playing a Storygame rather than traditional D&D then the magic needs to be codified into systems in the way that many feel robs it of the sense of mystery it has in fantasy literature. Add to this the fact that the magic system needs to be nerfed so that Wizard PCs won't overshadow non-spellcaster classes and that's why D&D Magic and the many RPGs it inspired don't feel as "Magical" as versions from novels.
Quote from: Tantavalist on February 23, 2022, 09:04:07 PM
Something else that affects the perception of magic and magicians in RPG vs. Literature is POV characters. In much of classic fantasy the Wizard was someone other than the main character, which meant that magic never had to be explained in detail. The POV character(s) see the Wizard do magic things and that's just them being a Wizard. One of the reasons A Wizard of Earthsea was so influential was that it was one of the first novels to successfully reverse this trend and show how magic worked from the point of view of someone who lived and breathed it.
With RPGs the magic is generally in the hands of players who have to understand the mechanics. More than that, unless you're playing a Storygame rather than traditional D&D then the magic needs to be codified into systems in the way that many feel robs it of the sense of mystery it has in fantasy literature. Add to this the fact that the magic system needs to be nerfed so that Wizard PCs won't overshadow non-spellcaster classes and that's why D&D Magic and the many RPGs it inspired don't feel as "Magical" as versions from novels.
Well.....sort of. Jack Vance depicted wizards from their POV really getting their hands dirty "doing" magic and did it a couple decades before A Wizard of Earthsea. One result was so-called Vancian magic (fire and forget), which did remove some mystery because you could see how it worked, and also imposed limits that nerfed (or at least put limits on) it, making it ideal as the basis for D&D "game" magic. The rest, as they say, is history.
I say one result, because so-called Vancian magic is only one of the methods he depicted. Others involve IOUN stones and the control of sandestins. That is high level stuff. In a way more "magical" because the powers are almost limitless, but in a way less so because it really boils down to commanding sandestins. They can do anything and will make a show of obeying commands, but they resent your power over them and will try to screw you over. Magic really becomes transactional at that point. You don't need to know spells, just how to cajole, threaten, bargain, and negotiate with sandestins. It's fun, but not quite what we think of as "magic."
EDITED TO add: on the other hand, once you get to that level, you can't complain that magic is overly routine or systematized. There is no system, you're winging it, trying to control unbelievably powerful entities with just bribes, threats, and the force of your personality
Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 11:02:00 PM
I say one result, because so-called Vancian magic is only one of the methods he depicted. Others involve IOUN stones and the control of sandestins. That is high level stuff. In a way more "magical" because the powers are almost limitless, but in a way less so because it really boils down to commanding sandestins. They can do anything and will make a show of obeying commands, but they resent your power over them and will try to screw you over. Magic really becomes transactional at that point. You don't need to know spells, just how to cajole, threaten, bargain, and negotiate with sandestins. It's fun, but not quite what we think of as "magic."
That is generally my preference for magic. It's not hard to replace spellbooks with spirits or familiars, with different personalities or powers. Or to create a system where you evoke power from entities, who again have different personalities and powers. (Realms of Magic from MSH is one of the more interesting examples.)
Quote from: Pat on February 23, 2022, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: Zirunel on February 23, 2022, 11:02:00 PM
I say one result, because so-called Vancian magic is only one of the methods he depicted. Others involve IOUN stones and the control of sandestins. That is high level stuff. In a way more "magical" because the powers are almost limitless, but in a way less so because it really boils down to commanding sandestins. They can do anything and will make a show of obeying commands, but they resent your power over them and will try to screw you over. Magic really becomes transactional at that point. You don't need to know spells, just how to cajole, threaten, bargain, and negotiate with sandestins. It's fun, but not quite what we think of as "magic."
That is generally my preference for magic. It's not hard to replace spellbooks with spirits or familiars, with different personalities or powers. Or to create a system where you evoke power from entities, who again have different personalities and powers. (Realms of Magic from MSH is one of the more interesting examples.)
As you may know, DCC is releasing a bunch of Dying Earth stuff later this year and they've indicated that their magic system, which can already be a bit wonky, will be further altered to better fit Vance, specifically noting that Ioun Stones will reflect the books and not AD&D versions of them. So stay tuned.
Quote from: Persimmon on February 26, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
As you may know, DCC is releasing a bunch of Dying Earth stuff later this year and they've indicated that their magic system, which can already be a bit wonky, will be further altered to better fit Vance, specifically noting that Ioun Stones will reflect the books and not AD&D versions of them. So stay tuned.
Sounds like a lot of bluster to me, because the IOUN stones in the original source
didn't explicitly do much of anything. The wizards who
didn't have them guessed that the stones would provide "protection" from their spells, but as far as I recall this was never tested.
The actual purpose or function of the IOUN stones was entirely ambiguous, so anyone claiming that their game will better reflect the source material is probably overblowing their horn.
EDIT: The one obvious difference they
could address is cosmetic: In the source material the stones follow you about in a cloud, not orbiting around your head.
The reason magic is reliable is because magic is just a weird kind of science.
You want to concoct something in a chemistry lab you do this, add this, heat that, measuring whatever and there you go. Works every time.
With dnd magic you say this, move your arms like that, pull out wing of bat, and there you go. Some dms allow something else but change the results- you need a diamond to get a spell working but pull out a bigger chunk of quartz the spell works but only half well and if there's some kind of a saving throw its boosted. But still weird science.
If you want magic-magic to be different than tech then you got to come up with something to make it more crazy. Maybe ALL magic comes from gods with a twisted sense of humor so any spell you do might fail- say 5%- and maybe there's a 5% chance of it doing something like backfiring so you toss a fireball at orcs (gah a hate crime evil orcs?) it may explode on YOU and you take 1/4 damage- got to tone it down some. Maybe a 10% chance it works but only does half damage or the orcs get a +4 to save.
Maybe humans or mortal critters ain't quite geared to use magic so it's like using a radio with a loose wire- it'll work most of the time but sometimes all you get is static.
Quote from: Zalman on February 26, 2022, 10:30:42 AM
Quote from: Persimmon on February 26, 2022, 07:23:36 AM
As you may know, DCC is releasing a bunch of Dying Earth stuff later this year and they've indicated that their magic system, which can already be a bit wonky, will be further altered to better fit Vance, specifically noting that Ioun Stones will reflect the books and not AD&D versions of them. So stay tuned.
Sounds like a lot of bluster to me, because the IOUN stones in the original source didn't explicitly do much of anything. The wizards who didn't have them guessed that the stones would provide "protection" from their spells, but as far as I recall this was never tested.
The actual purpose or function of the IOUN stones was entirely ambiguous, so anyone claiming that their game will better reflect the source material is probably overblowing their horn.
EDIT: The one obvious difference they could address is cosmetic: In the source material the stones follow you about in a cloud, not orbiting around your head.
My copy's stashed away, but IIRC while the IOUN stones in "Morreion" weren't concretely defined, they also weren't this vague ambiguous maybe-not-anythings. The mightiest wizards in the cosmos traveled to the furthest reaches of the universe to gather them from stars that were cleaved in half. They protected against other spells, and were powerful almost beyond imagining.
Another thing that game (and most fiction) magic systems tend to do is treat magic as something apart from nature. A pool of reality-warping energy that may be arbitrarily severed by certain effects. Why would the fantasy reality function this way? That makes about as much sense as cancelling out electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force. While hypothetically possible, that would disintegrate all matter.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 01, 2022, 04:10:41 PM
Another thing that game (and most fiction) magic systems tend to do is treat magic as something apart from nature. A pool of reality-warping energy that may be arbitrarily severed by certain effects. Why would the fantasy reality function this way? That makes about as much sense as cancelling out electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force. While hypothetically possible, that would disintegrate all matter.
Because they see magic as
supernatural, an idea they get from the Christian and Enlightenment view on magic, unlike cultures that view magic as mysterious but natural.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 05:04:06 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 01, 2022, 04:10:41 PM
Another thing that game (and most fiction) magic systems tend to do is treat magic as something apart from nature. A pool of reality-warping energy that may be arbitrarily severed by certain effects. Why would the fantasy reality function this way? That makes about as much sense as cancelling out electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force. While hypothetically possible, that would disintegrate all matter.
Because they see magic as supernatural, an idea they get from the Christian and Enlightenment view on magic, unlike cultures that view magic as mysterious but natural.
Well, to be even more specific its more Enlightenment's view of Christian views with a bit Protestant fire and brimstone theology that takes the King James translation as the actual words that came out of Jesus' mouth (as opposed to being an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of, most likely, Aramaic).
Because the actual Catholic (i.e. the only flavor available in Medieval Europe) views were quite a bit more complex. Supernatural meant God's sovereignty over nature... He made the rules so He can change them whenever He wishes (angels only have power in this world because God gives them the power to do so).
Interestingly enough, supernatural gifts were not seen as being tied to particular virtue... Samson was no saint, but God gave him superhuman strength anyway, notorious sinners were still able to heal by laying on hands after they sinned... but because those gifts served God's plan. God does not work against Himself and is supreme so the concept of any magic or supernatural force countering God is, frankly, silly.
Beyond that were the "natural magics" (which today we call science; the study and use of the gifts God granted us) and various forms of bargaining with evil spirits. Only the latter was prohibited by the Church and seen as dangerous (demons for obvious reasons and the dead because any soul you'd need magic to contact versus prayer would be those in Hell) and therefore prohibited... the former were encouraged and practiced by Catholic bishops and priests (heck, the Big Bang Theory was first presented by a faithful Catholic priest).
Natural magics being literally just pre-scientific method science also make "antimagic" ridiculous... you might be able to counter specific instances of it with more science (ex. pouring baking soda on a chemical fire), but the sort of physics you'd need to cancel physics would probably result in existence failure... of everything.
So basically you're down to anti-magic for the spirit bargaining... and that we actually do see throughout fiction; the notion of crucifixes repelling vampires, salt or holy ground holding back evil spirits.
There's your basis for antimagic in fiction... the presumption that all magic = evil spirits which is right out of Jack Chick Young Flat Earther theology.
Magic is something that serves a purpose in folklore and literature. A plot device, a convenience, or sometimes the centre of the plot. Reliability is entirely the concern of the story. In general, low level magic is easy, convenient, and nuisance value - often the spellcasters require some cunning to use magic to best effect. Some low level magic is derived from natural or ordinary things with a touch of spice to make them seem unusual.
Higher level magic is another matter entirely. Some things, like powerful curses, require that power is 'bought on credit' and the interest rates are very high. Powerful magic items are often borrowed from gods or spirits, on loan until the quest or mission is complete, and must be returned (try telling that to a player). That way power exits stage left before the end of the story and the world is no longer troubled by it.
Tolkien has the most powerful magic item in his story emerge as a very dangerous thing to own, never mind use. Stories of the 'Holy Grail' (I use the term loosely) are typical of things that serve a plot device - that's been true since Chretien Des Troyes first mentions it in the twelfth century (before it was christianised soon afterward, originally an unknown pagan item)
So, as a game master, magic should serve your purpose too. If you plan to have players borrow important and very powerful items, they must understand that huge consequences will be felt if they attempt to keep it. Such an item will open to detection, the equally powerful villains and monsters that want it are going to know someone has it. Referring to Vancian/D&D magic, remember that spell descriptions have been written to even things out though over the years players have gotten canny.
Spells cast in the heat of combat may not work as predicted if the caster has something else to worry about, or has their ability to gesture constrained, especially with iron shackles (a folklore remedy to prevent evil dudes from casting spells and also has the side effect of making their escape more difficult). Is the player underwater and unable to speak? Is the player ill, or suffering from thirst/hunger/wounds/or opposing magic? Has the scroll been damaged by fire or immersion? Has the vessel containing a vital potion been smashed accidentially? Personally I wouldn't just drop such a bombshell on the players. Listen to them planning and if necessary, remind them of some pertinent facts. In any event, if the payer has fallen backward from a height, his belongings might be damaged too. He can be healed of course, but repairing the damage to a valuable and fragile item is not such an easy task.
Your world, your story.