Magic and the skills to cast it?

[David C]

As I work on my game, certain parts just don't seem to fit or be of quality anymore.  Now I'm having this problem with the magic skills.  You see, all magic skills work identically (roll skill, check for success.)  The flavor is tripping me up. Here's the current situation.

Magic was not intended for the mortals of the realm, but during the creation of the world, one of the gods creating the world, was killed and the world inherited his ability. Everyone in this world is born with some level of magical ability, and everyone can be taught a few tricks if they bother to study it, but you have to be a born mage to achieve high levels of magic.  Magic is broken up into well defined schools.  For example, Anima would be creating life, resurrection or reanimation. 

The current skills are creation, balance, and destruction.  Creation is supposed to cover bringing anything into existence (like making a tree grow out of the ground.)  Balance is supposed to be renewal (bringing a dead tree back to life, or making a sick tree healthy.)  Destruction is supposed to cover removing things from existence (like burning the tree down.)

The problem is, I feel like there's some disjunction with the flavor of these.  Like, Anima would easily fit into Creation.  But what about Divination?  In my mind, the skills seem to encompass the power of godhood (Creation and Destruction.)  Balance is in there, because I like that idea of neutrality, and its been a hold over since the early days of my game.

I am trying to keep a near equal number of skills for each area of ability  (Knowledge, which includes magic, Martial and Social).  That's why I have 3 magic skills.  I've though about changing the skills to something more generic, like "Shaping, Throwing, and Power," but then I'd have to change the mechanics, probably to something more complicated.  The idea was that a mage might have 1, 2 or all 3 skills, depending on how specialized he was.  If you had all 3 skills, you could cast any school of magic you had a spell book for. 

Am I over-thinking this and it's fine the way it is?  Or is there room for improvement (and you guys can help unjam the wheels in my head?) 

Thanks in advance

[Guy Srinivasan]

Depending on how you phrase it, Divination can very easily fit under Balance or Destruction.

Balance: some of the fuzziness and uncertainty in the map (your mental model of the world) is resolved and now matches the territory (the actual state of the world).
Destruction: there were multitudes of possible presents/futures until your divination destroyed all but 1.

[Vulpinoid]

I've toyed with the notion of a trinary magic system on a few occasions.

But instead of a linear scale of creation, balance and destruction, I much prefer a cycle.

Creation -> Manipulation -> Destruction --(back to)--> Creation

Creation starts things on the start of their path of existence
Manipulation changes existing things (but the more it alters them the harder it is to manipulate them further)
Destruction ends something's path of existence
Then the cycle begins anew with new things

It laves a bit of a reincarnationist legacy through the magical system, but I've found that it covers more potential actions.

In this method, a divination is a creation of a possible future, manipulation makes the original vision of the divination more or less likely to occur, destruction of the original divination stops it from being a possibility at all...this could then be followed by a new creation which might turn the divination from a mere possibility into a definitive part of the world.

In my opinion, magic is always a driving force. It's not neutral. People who want mystical power go out of their way to hone their skills in it. This takes passion and drive. Not destructive, not creative, but a desire to do something. If you're lazy, or don't want to put in the effort, the magic just won't work. Even if everyone has access to magic, only those folks with the passion to pursue it will become the truly powerful mages in the world.

Even if a character is trying to restore a balance in the world, they'll probably have their own idea about how to accomplish this. They'll create new things. Manipulate existing things. Destroy things outright. Their actions are specific and often dramatic, even if their intentions are to counter an opponent.

But that's just my take on magic...

I've probably been playing too much Mage: the Ascension and hanging out with too many wiccans.

V

[Daniel B]

Hello,

when I began research for the RPG I'm working on, I was shellshocked because many of the ideas I came up with appeared to already be out there in one form or another. I think it has to do with the fact that symmetry is *really* attractive. To the point that I'd come up with a trinary magic system (but this one was based on the three domains, Physical, Mental, and Social).

By listening to other people, it's occurred to me that the symmetry doesn't really "do" anything. So my question to you is, why did you choose the schools "creation", "balance", and "destruction"? Was it just because it has a nice symmetry? If so, that's really better suited for a novel than a real game people will want to play. Otherwise you'll go into circles trying to figure out questions like where the Divination spells should fit.

I would instead recommend a bottom-up design. Determine what you want the players to be doing in the game, and how they'll go about doing it. Then you can finally sew up the results into nice packages. (There will still be some things that won't fit, but they'll be a lot easier to find a place for now that you have structure in place.)

Just my 2 cents,
Dan

[Egonblaidd]

I guess great minds do think alike, because I have also thought about using a magic system split into three groups: Creation, Manipulation, and Destruction.

In a more liberal sense, Creation would involve things like healing magic while Destruction would involve things like fireballs, and Manipulation would be like moving things or teleportation.  In a more literal sense, I would have reserved Creation and Destruction for deities and only allowed mortals the power of Manipulation.  This this case, healing and fireballs are merely a manipulation of existing matter.  To actually make a person or object cease to exist or to bring a new object or person into existence would be beyond the power of a mortal.

I think the question is, do mages actual use divination magic, or do they receive revelations from spirits or gods?  Something like a scrying spell that could see events happening far away would seem to fall under the realm of Balance or Manipulation.  A vision of the future could possibly fall under Destruction, in the sense the Creation is the beginning and Destruction is the end, and the future is something of the end that is yet to come.  On the other hand, it could all go into Balance, it just depends on how you want to handle it.  Could you make Divination a cross-school magic?  If a particular spell group doesn't fit into one of the predefined boxes in your system, then that might be an indication that you're not classifying things right.  You could alter your Creation-Balance-Destruction set, or you could alter Divination, taking Divination spells and putting them in other groups that do fit into one of the three archtypes you have for magic.  For example, you could have Doomsaying (visions of the future related to destruction, or just visions of the future), Scrying (long distance communication and spying), etc.

I also noticed that many of my ideas that I had thought original (such as a wound system that penalizes the character, instead of a straight up hitpoint system) had already been conceived of and used.  That being the case, it would be a good idea to check what others have done, how they've done it, and how it ended up working.  John Kim's site has a lot of interesting info, and even a page about magic systems.  The article about breaking out of scientific magic systems is particularly interesting.  I'm trying to have both a scientific aspect to magic and a mysterious aspect to magic in my RPG.

[Luke]

Am I over-thinking this and it's fine the way it is?  Or is there room for improvement (and you guys can help unjam the wheels in my head?) 

The great thing about magic is that it doesn't have to make sense. Don't try to fit it into neat little categories.
Play your game. Use magic. Make sure the rules feel right in play. As you playtest, change stuff that doesn't feel right on the spot. Make it work in play, then codify those rules.

Elegance in design is overrated.

-L

[Vulpinoid]

Elegance in design is overrated.

And bad design drives people to play other games....

V

[Luke]

And bad design drives people to play other games....

What's that supposed to mean, V? I'm not used to seeing obvious truisms posted as pure snark on this forum. Usually that stuff lives on other forums. Care to explain yourself or was it not germane to this particular conversation?

[Vulpinoid]

The great thing about magic is that it doesn't have to make sense. Don't try to fit it into neat little categories.

My reaction is to the above.

It just looks like a cop-out to me, an excuse for not bothering to do a bit of extra work and make the magic an integrated part of the setting.

It's like the D&D magic system...especially in early editions. We use d20 rolls for combat, d100 rolls when a thief wants to use one of their skills, but for magic users, it just works. 3 completely different systems with very little to inter-relate them.

More recent versions have brought skills into the d20 realm, but magic still sits out there as a eyesore.

Conversely, from an atmospheric game-world perspective, Hermetic magic tends to thrive on pigeonholing certain effects and categorizing them by field, function, form or any of a hundred other descriptive factors. Shamanic magic tends to involve dealing with certain spirits for certain effects. Neither is "more right" than the other, and different games will focus on different styles of effect and invocation methods, but it most mystical traditions see magic as an extension of the natural world (hence supernatural), rather than something else entirely.

My statement is merely, that a bit of thought about where magic ties into the system can go a long way in making the magic a living breathing part of the world rather than having it look like a last minute addendum.

Elegance, whether by intentional design or serendipity, keeps players happy because it makes everything look like it belongs together.

Haphazard design, whether intentioned or through ill-informed decisions, gives a jarring disconcerted effect and doesn't do a lot for continuity.

Maybe you want magic to be very unnatural, and disturbing...good, be blatant about this and use this to help support a games themes and colour.

But if you just make magic different and unbounded by regular conventions without giving an explanation it just looks amateurish and unconsidered.

Personally I think that Egonblaidd is following the right path by asking questions and trying to integrate his magic into his world. Also cross referencing with other threads about his system I can now see why magic has a neutral aspect to it, this links to the morality system that is developing...I actually appreciate the idea a bit more now that I've considered that.

But that's just my opinions on the matter. You asked for an explanation Luke, I hope that suffices. It wasn't a blatant dig or snark, more a disagreement with the first and last sentences of that previous post you made.

If you'd like to give your side now, explaining how inelegant solutions are better...I'm willing to listen.

V

[Luke]

You're very cute when you're passionate.
This isn't about excuses, cop outs or making sides. I've stated my case for David C and given him a simple method by which to pursue it. No defense on my part is necessary. Furthermore, this thread isn't about defending my ideas against yours. David C asked if he was overthinking. I gave him my 2¢. If he wants more, he'll let me know.

Thanks!
-L

[Egonblaidd]

I think Luke is saying, "you don't have to put magic into a box," and V is responding, "but it has to fit somewhere into your system."  Both of these, I think, are correct.  You don't need "Fire magic" and "Ice magic," or "Holy magic" and "Black magic," or any other "categories" of magic.  You could have something simpler.  Maybe all your spellcasters are druids, and so all have access to the same spells, but some may preferentially use certain spells based purely on personal flavor.  But you do need some kind of system for magic.  In fact, you could mesh magic into skills (like that article on John Kim's site suggests), so that magic is indistinguishable from other skills.

Also, thanks for the compliment, V.  To be clear, though, I never considered using the trinary magic system in my current project (I don't know if that's what you were referring to or not).  However, in a sense I suppose the literal interpretation of it has been applied unintentionally: humans can only manipulate, not create or destroy.

[David C]

Thanks for your responses, guys.  I've spent some time digesting all this.

Guy, I like divination being under destruction by your reasoning, it sounds neat. Everybody else, I've taken what you've said and it's helped me along.  I think the problem I'm having has to do with the nature of magic.  You see, every other skill is concrete.  Sword skill helps you attack with swords.  Metalworking lets you make weapons, tools and traps.  Magic on the other hand, well magic isn't really defined, since it's all imagination.  How I imagine it and how you imagine it are totally different.  On the other hand, the fluff in my setting is not concrete, it doesn't have an obvious framework for me.  I mean, here's my bits of color.

1) Magic is deity's power granted to mortals
2) Everyone has a bit of magic
3) Magic is interpreted differently by different groups (there are Machine mages, Nature mages and "Mathmatician/'Metamagic' mages.)
4) Outside these primary groups are universal spell books that all mages can tap into
5) Magic is unpredictable and unstable. Every time you cast a spell, the process might 'burn' you.

Hmm, talking to you guys is helping, I think I have an idea.  In my setting, there's a library that contains all knowledge of everything that exists.  Maybe, in that library, is the knowledge of all magic, and that a mage's ability to control the spell is their ability to tap into the knowledge of that library.  

Part of the difficulty I'm having is, well, I'd really not mind leaving magic a mystery entirely.  My setting mostly revolves around a single city, and defining magic is kind of outside the main vision.  However, these skills need names...

[Adam Riemenschneider]

I have a question for the OP, which will hopefully move things in the right direction:

What is the flavor of the setting? I'm presuming this is a historical fantasy of some kind. Can you give me an equivalent year in earth terms? Is this medieval fantasy (more-or-less the middle ages)? The Renaissance? Age of Antiquity?

Just trying to get a handle on the setting.

Also, as your setting pertains to magic:

Everyone has some magic, so magic would be seen as natural to these people, yes? And there are multiple deities, this is known to be true? What about spirits? What happens to people when they die? Is there an afterlife? Are there ghosts?

I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to fully grasp what people in this world are trying to accomplish when they use magic. I think that many settings use magic as a sort of fanciful stand-in for technology... which is perfectly fine, if that's their intent. I'm trying to gather yours.

If magic is seen as perfectly natural to the setting, and everyone can do magic... why *can't* a single person learn all of the schools of magic? Or can they?

Perhaps instead of having 3 Skills pertaining to magic (Creation, Balance, Destruction), which are descriptions of a spells intent (in my opinion), you have 3 Skills that describe individual processes in working magic (Gathering, Intent, Release) that all magic users will want to know? Like, for example, you mentioned a Sword Skill. That's pretty reasonable, and pretty catch-all. A Sword can be used to slash, stab, and parry... and a magic user can use rituals to Create, Balance, and Destroy. So, really, can't these *effects* be seen as the end result of magic use, instead of the use itself?

Myself, when I wrote my magic system, I ran into this same issue that you are. I knew I wanted magic. I had some ideas about what I wanted magic to be able to do. In the end, I wrote my system so that the Skill(s) described the different Schools (Hermetic, Wiccan, etc)... in other words, the approaches. The rituals themselves, I described in terms of their effect, kinda how you are saying magic can accomplish Creation, Balance, and Destruction.

So, for your own setting, mayhaps you'll want to write your Skills as the "well defined schools" you mentioned.

Lastly, to put this one final way... religions of the world have a lot of things in common. They help explain the universe and a person's place in it, help a person through various phases in their life, and have particular sacraments that enrich a person's life. Religions help a person feel they have more control over the "uncontrollable."

There are many, many religions out there. A religion can be analogous to a "well defined school." A "prayer" within the framework of a given religion can be analogous to a ritual or spell...

Good luck!

-a-

[Seamus]

As I work on my game, certain parts just don't seem to fit or be of quality anymore.  Now I'm having this problem with the magic skills.  You see, all magic skills work identically (roll skill, check for success.)  The flavor is tripping me up. Here's the current situation.

Magic was not intended for the mortals of the realm, but during the creation of the world, one of the gods creating the world, was killed and the world inherited his ability. Everyone in this world is born with some level of magical ability, and everyone can be taught a few tricks if they bother to study it, but you have to be a born mage to achieve high levels of magic.  Magic is broken up into well defined schools.  For example, Anima would be creating life, resurrection or reanimation. 

The current skills are creation, balance, and destruction.  Creation is supposed to cover bringing anything into existence (like making a tree grow out of the ground.)  Balance is supposed to be renewal (bringing a dead tree back to life, or making a sick tree healthy.)  Destruction is supposed to cover removing things from existence (like burning the tree down.)

The problem is, I feel like there's some disjunction with the flavor of these.  Like, Anima would easily fit into Creation.  But what about Divination?  In my mind, the skills seem to encompass the power of godhood (Creation and Destruction.)  Balance is in there, because I like that idea of neutrality, and its been a hold over since the early days of my game.

I am trying to keep a near equal number of skills for each area of ability  (Knowledge, which includes magic, Martial and Social).  That's why I have 3 magic skills.  I've though about changing the skills to something more generic, like "Shaping, Throwing, and Power," but then I'd have to change the mechanics, probably to something more complicated.  The idea was that a mage might have 1, 2 or all 3 skills, depending on how specialized he was.  If you had all 3 skills, you could cast any school of magic you had a spell book for. 

Am I over-thinking this and it's fine the way it is?  Or is there room for improvement (and you guys can help unjam the wheels in my head?) 

Thanks in advance

I think there is nothing wrong with allowing the flavor to flow from your 3 part magic system heou re. This is a nice concept, and there are many setting implications it raises. Do you have to keep divination in the game? Honestly a magic system that revolves around creation and destruction (and the balance of the two), is really cool. And I would be hesitant to introduce elements people expect but don't match the flavor.