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.