help with magic?

[M. J. Young]

I'm thinking this question might be helpful. I don't know that I want you to answer it on the forum, but rather to think about it in great detail and see what answers you have.

Exactly why does magic need to have a system of its own?

You see, Multiverser doesn't have its own magic "system"; magic works essentially the same as everything else, with a few nuances specific to it (just like technology, body skills, psionics, and combat each have specific nuances). When Star Frontiers introduced Psionics (in Zebulon's Guide to the Galaxy), the psi powers didn't have a different system, but just a few nuances that made the system work for them.

If you give something a different system within the game you

[*]call attention to it[*]suggest that it's more important[*]make it seem something different from the rest of the game.[/list:u]Now, that may be why you want to do it. But if you can figure out exactly why magic needs its own system, then you'll be in a much better place to know exactly what kind of system it needs.

And if you reach the point at which you can say it really doesn't need its own system, but only a few minor tweaks to the core system of the game, you're on your way to building a more cohesive and simpler game system.

Anyway, think about it.

--M. J. Young

[madelf]

OK, this isn't what you are looking for, but I thought I would comment.

Actually I found your articles quite intriguing.
Although much of the content assumes a pre-technological setting, where mine will have a roughly 19th century level of technology, I find myself agreeing on many of the points you raise.
Unfortunately I think some of them would be difficult to implement. Not sharing all the rules of magic, for instance, can't really work in the scope of a published game. Since the players can also get the book, there is really no way to keep the secret. In the case a homebrew system, where only the GM has access to all the rules, I think this would be a very interesting way to handle magic.
I very much like your thoughts on making magic more pervasive. Making it be something existing and happening on it's own as opposed to being only something cast by players or npcs. I may have to try and implement something along those lines.
Your conservation of energy section has some elements that I had even previously considered including, such as being able to draw off ever present energy and not having a fixed number of spells, or spell points. I'm also starting to lean toward a more low-powered magic system, much as your example suggests. (I'm more convinced of that than ever after your article on the societal impacts of magic)
I don't think the religion sections relates much to what I'm working on. The pantheon for my game is pagan, so morality aside, a character could find a deity that would approve of his actions, so the morality restrictions would be kind of moot. I also question whether it was any more a matter of magic being tied up in religion in those times, as it was a matter of life being tied up in religion. Again though, I think for certain settings those ideas would also work well, just not for this particular one.
All in all, an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

Exactly why does magic need to have a system of its own?

Although you weren't looking for an answer to this, I think I'll give one regardless.
In short, I agree completely with your entire post.
To elaborate, I think that having the magic system mesh as closely as possible with the remainder of the game system is the best possible solution. Which is why I am probably going to try to implement a skill-based magic system such as was suggested in an earlier post.
When I think of systems, I tend to segment. I have a combat system. I have a task resolution system. They are basicly the same thing, with nuances that make them work for their particular purpose.
I believe that without really being able to quantify it, this is what I was looking for to begin with. Something that would get away from the flashy highly defined "magic system" and more toward something that would blend into the background and seem more "everyday".
So what you describe is exactly what I need to do.

[permacultureguerilla]

Hello. My apologies for being so new to this, and my thanks to the thread: My mind twitches with every post. Here's a thought, anyone is welcome to start a thraed since it is somewhat off topic but still mauls the issue.

Madelf: You're saying the player should be -afraid- of magic. Not necessarily a rough collection of ingredients, and more than a botch. They should actually cringe every time they want to cast it.

I skimmed through some of the links, and didn't find a similarity to this concept I'm thinking (perhaps I should have read more thorough) . . .

Can magic be made into its own combat system?

This means there's not necessarily such thing as a single desired effect that leads only to positive or negative results.

So the practitioner wants to call up a fireball (just the classic example). She's trying to pull it from reality, which opposes her. She runs all sorts of potential risks. The heat from the fireball could use her own body heat which actually freezes her to death? Takes her own soul energy so she becomes comatose or an automaton for certain time, and easily controlled? Is accompanied by some fire creature that it was to come from? Burn her alive? Sends her careening back the way a heavy gunfire might? The valuables she chose are lost without getting anything? Or becomes a "leak" in reality, so the effects are ongoing, like a continuous burning.

More on a limb: Like your shadow in wraith, using magick creates a personal antagonist? You have to roleplay for the spell / duel with dice?

You can let me know, Madelf, if it's way out of what you're looking for.

Best of luck!

[John Kim]

Actually I found your articles quite intriguing.
Although much of the content assumes a pre-technological setting, where mine will have a roughly 19th century level of technology, I find myself agreeing on many of the points you raise.
Unfortunately I think some of them would be difficult to implement. Not sharing all the rules of magic, for instance, can't really work in the scope of a published game. Since the players can also get the book, there is really no way to keep the secret. In the case a homebrew system, where only the GM has access to all the rules, I think this would be a very interesting way to handle magic.  

I do address some of this, by suggesting the idea of hidden variables.  i.e. The framework of the system is known, but the system is designed to have hidden information added to it by the GM.  For example, the GM might set hidden stats to spells: like drawbacks or complications.  The player knows that the hidden stats are there, but they are set by the GM and can only be found out through play.  

I very much like your thoughts on making magic more pervasive. Making it be something existing and happening on it's own as opposed to being only something cast by players or npcs. I may have to try and implement something along those lines.
Your conservation of energy section has some elements that I had even previously considered including, such as being able to draw off ever present energy and not having a fixed number of spells, or spell points. I'm also starting to lean toward a more low-powered magic system, much as your example suggests. (I'm more convinced of that than ever after your article on the societal impacts of magic)  

Well, really the meat of my suggestion is that the whole concept of "conservation of energy" is a modern invention which doesn't necessarily apply to pre-scientific concepts of magic.  That is, rather than "drawing off ever-present energy", magic could just not require energy or create it freely as needed.  Now, your setting is more modern/scientific in flavor, so the energy paradigm might apply better there.  But if you find use out of it at all, then great.  

I don't think the religion sections relates much to what I'm working on. The pantheon for my game is pagan, so morality aside, a character could find a deity that would approve of his actions, so the morality restrictions would be kind of moot. I also question whether it was any more a matter of magic being tied up in religion in those times, as it was a matter of life being tied up in religion. Again though, I think for certain settings those ideas would also work well, just not for this particular one.  

Well, I'd agree that (like all my points) the morality suggestion doesn't necessarily apply.  However, I don't think that being pagan particularly changes things.  Pagan religions are still concerned with morality.  While it is true that some malicious god might approve of your actions, that will likely have drastic religious and social implications.  My current campaign is semi-pagan.  You have a point about life being tied up in religion -- but that doesn't change the point that magic is tied up with religion.  

All in all, an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.  

You're welcome.

[madelf]

Madelf: You're saying the player should be -afraid- of magic. Not necessarily a rough collection of ingredients, and more than a botch. They should actually cringe every time they want to cast it.

Well, yes and no. If you know what you're doing, and you're very careful, chances are you won't have a problem. If you are not skilled in magic, or you're cutting corners, then you have reason to cringe.

Can magic be made into its own combat system?

I would like to think so. As the system is being developed, we're even incorporating the concept of "parrying" magical attacks and reflecting them back on the attacker. As common as magic is going to be, I thing mage duels will be every bit as common as pistol duels.
Thanks to the suggestions here, the magic system is being set up to blend pretty well seamlessly (at least I think it will) with the combat system. The actual spell effect is being based on skill simulation.

Your idea of the spell having damaging effects based on the type of spell is an interesting one, but I think it might get a little too complex for what I'm looking for.
What we're doing is an effect called spell burn (if anyone can think of a better name than that, please let me know). It does lethal damage to the caster if the right things go wrong. Or the wrong things go wrong, whatever. Anyway, if you botch badly enough, with a powerful enough spell, you can literally "burn up" and die. This is a very rare occurance as designed though. Usually a botch will just hurt a bit.

I do address some of this, by suggesting the idea of hidden variables. i.e. The framework of the system is known, but the system is designed to have hidden information added to it by the GM. For example, the GM might set hidden stats to spells: like drawbacks or complications. The player knows that the hidden stats are there, but they are set by the GM and can only be found out through play.

I must have missed your point when I read that. Yes, if only the framework was included and the GM chose the specifics, that would certainly work. I might keep that in mind for the future, but for this game I think the randomness and risk of using magic should be enough to plague the characters with. Beside which, magic is so common in this game world (along with the existence of scientific methods) that I think most of the mystery would have been figured out.
(not saying that magic necessarily is something that can be figured out, only that it fits with the feel in this case)
I've got the seed of another idea floating around in my head though, that I may develop into another game down the road, which I think might work very well with the idea of unknown and mysterious magic. The concept for that is very mystery laden, so I think it would be the better place to do that.

Well, really the meat of my suggestion is that the whole concept of "conservation of energy" is a modern invention which doesn't necessarily apply to pre-scientific concepts of magic. That is, rather than "drawing off ever-present energy", magic could just not require energy or create it freely as needed. Now, your setting is more modern/scientific in flavor, so the energy paradigm might apply better there. But if you find use out of it at all, then great.

I think the "energy paradigm" does apply better in this particular case.
I did get your point about the "pre-scientific magic" however. I recently re-read an excellent book called "Wolves of the Dawn" which makes much of a legendary magical sword which is later discovered to be simply bronze. But to the people who were not familiar with it, the sword was like nothing they had ever seen. In a pre-industrial setting this would work amazingly well. In a 19th century level of technology, people will be much better equiped to seperate magic from science. So magic existing in that sort of society would have to be something very different from magic in a pre-industrial society.
At least that's my feeling.

While it is true that some malicious god might approve of your actions, that will likely have drastic religious and social implications

I believe the social implications are more to the point in this case. Consider, if you will, that an organized religion based on a pagan pantheon consisting of gods of all manner of moralities would be much less likely to lay down the sort of moral and ethical demands that most modern people (being largely monotheistic, and often christian) expect.
(I'm afraid I do not agree that pagan religions as a whole are much obsessed with morality, at least not in the sense that it's ordinarily applied. From all the mythology I've read pagan gods are not exactly known for their morals) In the setting I'm visualizing, the "church" would be there to honor and serve the gods. All the gods.
So moral judgements from the church would be all but impossible. I know this is foreign to the very concept of most actual religions, but this is the way it would have to work (at least in my opinion) given these factors.
So religion would be about religion, not about telling other people what to do (which has always been a personal fanatasy of mine, but that's neither here nor there).
Society, however, would need to develop a series of checks and balances in order to operate. Therefore laws would be created. In this case society would be determining morality rather than religion (another alien concept).
So if you follow an evil god, and do evil things, then religiously that is fine, there are no religious consequences. However doing evil things is generally frowned upon in society, and is quite often illegal. So doing evil things will get you arrested and punished. But that is a social consequence as opposed to a religious one.
Now that I've got that out of my system, just one last point.
Why does magic have to be tied up in religion? Not just because it traditionally has been. This is fantasy. It doesn't have to, and shouldn't, exactly match the historical beliefs of our world. In our world, a literate and scientifically knowledgeable person (with some exceptions of course) would generally not have believed in magic by the Victorian era. To have that same scientifically knowledgable person know beyond a shadow of a doubt that magic is as real as the air he breaths, changes a few assumptions about magic. At least I think it would. What about a person who is an atheist? Who does not believe in gods, and scorns religion. My introduction says that anyone can use magic. In an age of science, must I maintain that a person must worship a god in order to access a natural energy source? So, you see, a strong religious tie-in really wouldn't be appropriate in this case.

I hope all of that isn't coming off like a rant. Actually I really enjoy discussing these sorts of things, and comparing input from others. So, please if I ever sound antagonistic, it's only because I've gotten carried away with my own argument, not because I wish to antagonize anyone.

By the way, if I were creating a magic system for a realistic, pre-industrial game... I'd be happily using just about every one of the points you've made.

[John Kim]

I believe the social implications are more to the point in this case. Consider, if you will, that an organized religion based on a pagan pantheon consisting of gods of all manner of moralities would be much less likely to lay down the sort of moral and ethical demands that most modern people (being largely monotheistic, and often christian) expect.  (I'm afraid I do not agree that pagan religions as a whole are much obsessed with morality, at least not in the sense that it's ordinarily applied. From all the mythology I've read pagan gods are not exactly known for their morals) In the setting I'm visualizing, the "church" would be there to honor and serve the gods. All the gods.  
So moral judgements from the church would be all but impossible. I know this is foreign to the very concept of most actual religions, but this is the way it would have to work (at least in my opinion) given these factors.  

Well, you know the fantasy setting you are visualizing -- and I see nothing wrong with what you describe for that.  However, I don't agree with your reasoning here.  While there are definitely important differences between polytheistic and monotheistic religions, it is not reasonable to generalize that they are less moral.  The behavior of a random god in myth doesn't condone the same behavior in mortals.  Consider, for example, how Yahweh behaves to Job in the Old Testament.  

Still, in some cases this is true.  The Romans, for example, were not big on religious morals and were not terribly religious in general.  The same could be said for a lot of the South Pacific.  But on the other hand, the ancient Egyptians or Hindus had very strict moral codes and authority.  Mind you, it isn't the same moral code a modern person might naively expect -- but it is still moral.  There are lots of other examples.  My point is: it is a reasonable and interesting idea for a religion not to have moral authority, but that doesn't necessarily follow from being polytheistic.  

Why does magic have to be tied up in religion? Not just because it traditionally has been. This is fantasy. It doesn't have to, and shouldn't, exactly match the historical beliefs of our world. In our world, a literate and scientifically knowledgeable person (with some exceptions of course) would generally not have believed in magic by the Victorian era.  

Funny you should say that.  I have a particular interest in this -- I am playtesting Chris Lehrich's Shadows in the Fog, which is all about literate and knowledgeable people in Victorian London who believe in magic.  Now, you can perhaps say that the Golden Dawn and Theosophists -- despite their extraordinary popularity -- were exceptions.  But spiritualism and mesmerism, for example, were totally mainstream.  Victoria herself was said to have attended a seance.  

Still, I don't disagree with your main point: that this is a fantasy and it doesn't have to fit with the history and legend of our world.  I just want to question the choices.

[contracycle]

Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science.  I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

This produices a number of problems.  First of all, no mechanical exploit of the system can be out of bounds.  Rationality applies throughout, so for example: if a magician botches 'n burns, do they actually break into flames?  Thats clearly a fire hazard in a city; one would assume that practictioners are strictly regulated. [and this raises a system quewstions: will you actually enforce character death on a single unlucky role?]

Byt contrast, consider Agone, which does not have a prtiocularly innovative system per se but does have a marvellous special effect that keeps it magical.  To perform magic, a magician has a Dancer, a little blue elf-like thing that they keep about.  Dancers... dance, to the musice of the universe, which no-one else can hear, nor do they speak or have much in the way or biogical definition.  Some practitioners derive magic by torturing their Dancers and wearing them crucified across their chests.

Now thats magic.

[madelf]

My point is: it is a reasonable and interesting idea for a religion not to have moral authority, but that doesn't necessarily follow from being polytheistic.

This is certainly true. If a polytheistic pantheon consisted of gods with a common view of morality, then certainly an enforcable concept of morality would develop. My point would only apply to a polytheistic pantheon which contained conflicting moralities.
I just maintain that in a pantheon where the gods did not share such a common view, it would be nearly impossible for the religion to determine a common definition of morality, let alone enforce it.
So the religion would have some choices. They could honor the gods which reflected societal morals, excluding the "bad" gods. (which could be asking for trouble). They could form splinter groups (probably the more likely outcome) of followers of specific gods or handfulls of gods which would tend to result in none of the groups having enough power to really enforce anything. (I believe this is the reasoning, concious or not, behind the common concept of each character following the god of his choice, really a lack of organized religion, which is so prevalent in fantasy)
Or (possibly least likely of all, but an idea I personally kind of like) an organized religion would develop that did not attempt to define or enforce morality at all, but existed purely as a liason between the people and the gods.
Is my concept of religion realistic? Given the nature of people in general, I doubt it. I believe the way that religion has developed in our world is a direct reflection of human nature, and that anything much different would be very unlikely without outside intervention. The gods actually walking the earth and taking a hand in daily events for instance.
This is all theoretical. I'm not sure yet if I can even make my concept work within my game. I may end up falling back on the multiple churches honoring individual gods and only able to enforce their chosen morality through political and peer pressure. Or I may break up the church into only two groups, the generally moral and the generally amoral (giving an opportunity for conflict, which might be fun).
I 'm not sure what way I'll go yet.

But spiritualism and mesmerism, for example, were totally mainstream.

Well, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by spiritualism since that is a rather broad term. By the interpretation I would assume, it would really have more to do with religion than magic, but I may be missing your point. Mesmerism (by which I take it you're referring to hypnosis) has become pretty well accepted as a science, and certainly isn't magic, even though there are many who still don't believe in it today.
I don't really think, even based on your example that spiritualism would necessarily have anything to do with magic. One might even be able to argue that a seance could be a religious undertaking rather than a magical one, as religion assumes an afterlife, not magic. A also don't see where mesmerism (which might likely be considered magic) would really have anything to do with religion.
To be clear, virtually all the people in my game world (unless they are deluded or had lived their life a hermit) would certainly believe in magic. Chances are very good they've seen it in use first hand. The gods would be much less in-your-face and therefore would be much easier to disbelieve. So I really don't think mixing magic up with religion in this case would be a good idea.
I do agree that there were many people who believed in magic in victorian times. There are even many people who believe in magic today.
I just question whether magic would have been

generally

accepted by the educated person. Now if in Shadows in the Fog (or any other victorian era game) has magic being real, then of course an educted and even scientifically inclined person would believe in it,because they can see the evidence that it is real. That's a factor that makes a big difference.

Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science. I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

That's a good point. But if you assume that magic is a natuaral force that anyone can utilize, and that it should not be a religious factor, then that's what you have. Call it magic, call it science, call it whatever you will, it's still the same thing.
Fire is de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed. Does that make it technology? I don't think so, but you may feel differently.
My interpretation (for this particular application) is that magic is a natural force, much like fire, that can be, more or less, controlled using, more or less, scientific principles. I see it as being entirely apart from technology, and rather as a force of nature.
I also think some understanding of magic would have occured by the 19th century, just as scientific understanding of anything else would have advanced. As an example (using John's concept of hidden rules to make magic mysterious) it is fine to apply hidden rules to magic at a pre-industrial level. But give those pre-industrial people a thousand or so years to experiment and chancees are they'll have the rules pretty well figured out (assuming they don't change of course).
I think the setting (and the assumption that magic has been around all along) almost requires a scientific treatment of magic.

This produices a number of problems. First of all, no mechanical exploit of the system can be out of bounds.

No. I think magic will erratic enough that anything the GM wants to be out of bounds, can be out of bounds. In my opinion, the rules to a game should never be enforced to the detriment of the game. I really can't forsee where that should occur with this system, but if the GM wants to determine that certain things aren't allowed in his campaign, then that's his option.

Rationality applies throughout, so for example: if a magician botches 'n burns, do they actually break into flames?

I haven't made a final decision on that as yet, though that was my initial thought. I'm still considering it.

Thats clearly a fire hazard in a city; one would assume that practictioners are strictly regulated.

One would certainly hope so. Any power source on that level would likely be strictly regulated.

[and this raises a system quewstions: will you actually enforce character death on a single unlucky role?]

Character death will never occur on a single unlucky roll. The backlash system is better balanced than that. If you are already very weak, you are trying to do something beyond your current power, without proper preparation, you are not utilizing any fortune points (which are in place specifically to allow such "heroic" acts), and you also botch very badly, then yes your character could, possibly, die. But this would not happen without the player knowing what he was risking, and making a concious decision to do so. In ordinary circumstances a botched role would at the most slightly injure or weaken the character, limiting thier ability to perform more spellcasting.
It is in place as a control to keep the mage character from being too powerful. The open-ended system (without memorized spells, energy pools, or similar limitations on the number or type of spells cast) requires something that will keep the use of magic at a managable level.

Byt contrast, consider Agone, which does not have a prtiocularly innovative system per se but does have a marvellous special effect that keeps it magical. To perform magic, a magician has a Dancer, a little blue elf-like thing that they keep about. Dancers... dance, to the musice of the universe, which no-one else can hear, nor do they speak or have much in the way or biogical definition. Some practitioners derive magic by torturing their Dancers and wearing them crucified across their chests.

No offense to the creator or players of Agone, but....Ick.
I also doubt that a simple "special effect" can bring a system from mundane to magical, but I could be wrong. And really, magical familiars aren't really what I'd think of as innovative, though I suppose crucifying them and wearing them like jewelry might be.
But hey, if it works, great.

[M. J. Young]

Why does magic have to be tied up in religion?...To have that same scientifically knowledgable person know beyond a shadow of a doubt that magic is as real as the air he breaths, changes a few assumptions about magic. At least I think it would. What about a person who is an atheist? Who does not believe in gods, and scorns religion. My introduction says that anyone can use magic. In an age of science, must I maintain that a person must worship a god in order to access a natural energy source? So, you see, a strong religious tie-in really wouldn't be appropriate in this case.

Hmm, well, my concern with the asbove, as it has developed, is that this is not really magic at all, but Weird Science. I mean, the magic is essentially de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed: it is, in short, technology.

That's a good point. But if you assume that magic is a natuaral force that anyone can utilize, and that it should not be a religious factor, then that's what you have. Call it magic, call it science, call it whatever you will, it's still the same thing.
Fire is de-mystified, reasonably reliable, and commonly employed. Does that make it technology? I don't think so, but you may feel differently.
My interpretation (for this particular application) is that magic is a natural force, much like fire, that can be, more or less, controlled using, more or less, scientific principles. I see it as being entirely apart from technology, and rather as a force of nature.

O.K., first, by definition, technology is controlling forces of nature; controlling forces of nature is technology.

The problem seems to lie in the definition of magic. This is a debate I've had many times with many people. Reverend Rodney Barnes thinks that magic should be treated as a natural force, a residual power in nature that some are able to exploit (see http://claymore.50megs.com/gamemagic.html">My View of Magic in RPGs; also, our views are presented in a symposium on magic in the third issue of http://www.mindspring.com/~ernestm/wt&d/issue3/issue3.html">The Way, the Truth, and the Dice, available free in PDF format); I think that if you reduce magic to just another natural property which we've not yet fully understood but have learned to exploit, you turn it into science and technology, and pretty much say you've gotten rid of magic in your world.

Why should atheists have to believe in god to do magic? They shouldn't; but they should have to believe in magic, whatever that is. If magic is a supernatural energy that impinges on and alters the natural world, then to use it you sort of have to accept that there is some sort of supernatural world. If it's nothing more than a natural energy of which we were previously unaware--like radio waves and gamma radiation--then it's not, in my understanding, magic. It's another branch of science and technology.

Now, there's no reason why you couldn't have a world in which that which for centuries has been called magic is now recognized as just another of the forces of nature that can be harnessed by man. In that case, in a Victorian setting you'll undoubtedly have wealthy inventors tinkering with ways to harness it better, trying to understand it, writing books on the subject. What you won't have is anything magical about it. It will be gravity, light, radiation, sound, a known quantity with unknown properties for scientists to study.

Personally I find it distasteful to call it magic when it's just another natural force; but I'm probably in a minority on that.

--M. J. Young

[madelf]

O.K., first, by definition, technology is controlling forces of nature; controlling forces of nature is technology.

I think I have to agree with that reasoning. I tend to think of technology as manufactured items myself, but that's probably inaccurate. So what I am referring to, in the way that I have developed it, is a science. I'm fine with that.

Why should atheists have to believe in god to do magic? They shouldn't; but they should have to believe in magic, whatever that is. If magic is a supernatural energy that impinges on and alters the natural world, then to use it you sort of have to accept that there is some sort of supernatural world. If it's nothing more than a natural energy of which we were previously unaware--like radio waves and gamma radiation--then it's not, in my understanding, magic. It's another branch of science and technology.

One could argue that the supernatural is only the natural that we have yet to fully understand. This theory goes well with the idea of the pre-industrial society that views technolgy as magic because they do not understand it. So really magic is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps whether the energy is magical depends entirely on the approach of the caster. If it's done mystically then it's magic, if it's done scientifically then it's harnessing a natural force. But does that really change the nature of the energy? I think not.

Now, there's no reason why you couldn't have a world in which that which for centuries has been called magic is now recognized as just another of the forces of nature that can be harnessed by man. In that case, in a Victorian setting you'll undoubtedly have wealthy inventors tinkering with ways to harness it better, trying to understand it, writing books on the subject. What you won't have is anything magical about it. It will be gravity, light, radiation, sound, a known quantity with unknown properties for scientists to study.

Well, think about it. If you've got an energy source that obviously exists, and can be manipilated in any manner, scientists are going to study it. There's really no way I can think of to get around that.
So "magic" becomes a natural force, harnessed and put to work in an industrial age steam-punk sort of world? Great, that fits my setting. But I cannot see how that in any way, shape, or manner, changes what magic is. All that would change is the perception of it.

Personally I find it distasteful to call it magic when it's just another natural force; but I'm probably in a minority on that.

Well, I can respect your feeling on that.
But why would a name traditionally assigned to a particular force be renamed simply because a better understanding of it has developed over time? You could call it psionics, a paranormal force, call it anything you want, it doesn't change what it is. Magic is just what I choose to call it, based on the idea that it's the traditional name for the energy in question since the dawn of time.

The other thing I fail to grasp is why this interpretation of magic is being tagged technology, when the magic system being developed for this game is the least reliable, least constricted to exact cataloged "spells", and most free-form magic system I've, personally, ever seen.
I'll grant that many, if not most, of the people here have far more exposure to more games than I. So I'm sure there are systems which are far more free-form than what mine is turning into.
Still it seems that the more common systems of magic with specific lists of spells that are cast exactly the same every time, with exactly the same results, with no randomness to the system at all, are far more technological in nature than what I'm trying to do.  
So my magic concept may not be perfect, but I think it's better than average.
Is it possible that if my game were set in a less scientific time period, that the mechanic I'm using to represent magic would not be so quickly labeled technology?

[madelf]

One thing I forgot to note is the division of natural from supernatural in the definition of magic. This division breaks down very quickly in a fantasy world. And perhaps even more so in a scientific era fantasy world.

When elves, dragons, undead, and magic exist side by side with science and technology, how do you say what is natural and what is super-natural?
By the standards of our world, the entire world of my game is supernatural. But by it's own standards, the same things are entirely part of the natural order. What could possibly be supernatural in that sort of world, where everything we accept as supernatural is commonplace?

I think there's too much emphasis on how magic should be defined based on the parameters of our world, and not enough thought put into how it should be defined within the parameters of a world that is completely unnatural by our standards.

Of course this is entirely my own fault, since I haven't really presented the entire package for discussion, but it still impacts the decisions I must make.

[permacultureguerilla]

I hate to continue drudging this magic-technology issue when really you're just trying to push through the game concept. But I think I see where it got off track.

"Magic," if found to have its own energy "signature" or its own system beyond our own universe, then "Magic" is a new science. You have astrophysics, you have quantum phyics, you have magic. Because madelf is not suggesting it as a science per se, it's not understood. It's a discovery. It's just a few "tricks" people know but no one can -engineer- magic.

Example: People knew of the seed well before hardly any other technology. But did they understand the seed? Even genetic engineers are not fully aware of how the cell works to produce the plant, although they can now engineer them according to the pattern that nature has given general life.

This reminds me of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within (one of my obsessions). Yes, it had become a science but it was still beautiful and mysterious. I guess madelf is doing the same a little earlier in time.

Tell me. Would you be writing your game in a sort of historical review format? People talking about what they've learned, strange things happening? Or strictly technical? (Simulationist vs Gamist again). The former might solve this debate, but the latter means really none of this issue matters (except for our own pleasure, I guess).

I suppose this society, at the very least, has government agencies trying to research magick, because they'll be damned if their country loses a war for their own ignorance. I can't see a very powerful mage as anything other than a target for test subjects, or even a labrat / celebrity.

If technology is bringing about confederations, then mages are probably hired under millitary contract, and "rogues" become a deeply mistrusted media microscope subject. The society might become a bit like the X-Men.

Okay. (1) Magic will only stay mysterious if communication is wiped out or the planet has bigger things to worry about (like in Final Fantasy). (2) Religions, to me, develop like theories that people want to know so badly they just fall on one. Magic has nothing to do with religion, because the things people do are obvious. It's not until you have "clericism." You are -required- to worship in order for the magic to work.

Let me know if I'm repeating a lot here. But IMO science and religion are out of it. Question is will characters have the freedom to explore their abilities without being the victim of fanatic dissection? That depends on you finding creative reasons for them being left alone (whereas our society would tear them apart). I can't even remember what your original question  was. *chuckle*

[madelf]

Let me know if I'm repeating a lot here. But IMO science and religion are out of it. Question is will characters have the freedom to explore their abilities without being the victim of fanatic dissection? That depends on you finding creative reasons for them being left alone (whereas our society would tear them apart). I can't even remember what your original question was. *chuckle*

I guess this has gone a bit beyond getting some advice on a mechanic for simulating magic hasn't it? I think the debate is pretty cool for it's own sake though.
To address the issues you've raised...
I don't think mages getting disected to find out what makes them tick is going to be a problem, because they are not unique. In the world I'm creating, magic simply is. Magical energy exists  in and of itself, as natural as air,  independant of any supernatural beings, deities, or even spellcasters. A mage is nothing more than a person who has specialized in the skills required for manipulating magical energy. It does not take a mage to create a magical effect. A mage is simply someone who is more skilled than normal at it. Anyone can cast a spell, or at least attempt to. So if the government, or any other organization, wants to study magic, all they have to do is get some of their people to study the proper forms and rituals, and they can create magical effects on demand, under laboratory conditions, whenever they want to. Governments can easily have magically trained special forces, it's just a matter of how they train their soldiers.
It pretty much diffuses the X-men scenario if everyone is a mutant.

This does not preclude a lot of difference in results though. Magic is not something that can be made to work with machine-like precision. It requires a human element, which makes all the rules different. Some people have a higher aptitude for magic than others, and can channel more energy than others. The randomness and unstable elements of magic make the results hard to duplicate exactly even for the same caster. And it is at least as dangerous as experimenting with any other volatile energy. Push it too far, and bad things happen. So while magic could certainly be studied scientifically, I think it would be a very frustrating science.


As far as the way I'm writing it, to be honest I'm not sure exactly how it's going to end up. Right now I just keep building on my notes and seeing where it goes. Most likely it will end up being a combination of first person narrative and encyclopedic. Giving a personal viewpoint, and then presenting the facts. That's the way I'm working it right now
I'm not really all that familiar with the Gamist/Simulationist/Narativist debate, though it seems to be a popular topic here. I tried reading some of the posts relating to it, but I really couldn't see the point. Why worry about breaking things down and labeling them? I doubt that most games are purely one type or another, but rather a blending of different elements, I'm sure my game will be as well.
Perhaps I miss the point, but I've never been one to feel any great need to analyze and apply names to things. To me it's a game. It's fun, or not. No big deal.
But that's just me.

[greyorm]

I'm afraid I do not agree that pagan religions as a whole are much obsessed with morality, at least not in the sense that it's ordinarily applied. From all the mythology I've read pagan gods are not exactly known for their morals.

I'm sorry, but as a pagan priest, and a student of ancient religions (nearly by requirement), mythology, and divine figures, I can state factually that you are very, very mistaken in your assessments -- you are, in fact, 180 degrees off the mark.

Society "creates" religion to reinforce and uphold its social mores and concepts of right and wrong -- or vice versa, religion creates a foundation for society based on its social mores and customs. As you can see, the two are so interwoven, they are functionally inseperable, especially when discussing pre-modern civilizations (which relied on the temple and priests as the focal-point around which their entire society moved).

Polytheistic pagan religions enforce morality as much as monotheistic religions do, and have done so throughout time: the religious underpinings and beliefs of a society create a map of that culture and its moral beliefs, its accepted behaviors, and its views of the world and its workings. Pagan religions are thus equally as "obsessed with morality" -- that is, with seperating right action and wrong action, with ensuring correct social order is kept -- as are the monotheistic religions you reference.

I suggest you examine the ancient Chinese religion, Egyptian religion, and Norse religion to start with. I'm not talking about books of myths about the gods of those cultures; I'm talking about actually studying the religion itself, which resemble the myths about as much as real-life in the middle ages resembles fairy tales. The point, of course, being that the myths, like the fairy tale, are metaphors, not necessarily representative of real beliefs or social behaviors, actions, or events.

For example, there is a lengthy chapter in the Poetic Edda with verses describing the path to wisdom, spoken by Odin. The beliefs reflected therein were immediately relevant to worshippers of Thor, Freyr, Odin, and any other Norse deity you care to name becuase they embodied the acceptable and correct behaviors of the Norse culture.

I believe the social implications are more to the point in this case. Consider, if you will, that an organized religion based on a pagan pantheon consisting of gods of all manner of moralities would be much less likely to lay down the sort of moral and ethical demands that most modern people (being largely monotheistic, and often christian) expect.

Before I could answer to this, I would need to know if you were talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods and spirits, or a real pantheon of the same. Fantasy pantheons are largely fantastical crocks bearing no resemblance to any actual, real-world religion(s) or god(s) that does or ever has existed, even if and when they borrow names and mythologies.

Unfortunately, much of what you're stating here seems to come from "gamebook knowledge" of how paganism or polytheistic societies operate(d) and behave(d), and gamebook knowledge is sorely lacking any realistic basis upon which to form opinions.

Pagan religions, unlike gamebooks or simple books of myths present, are not mish-mashes of gods with conflicting moralities. Pagan religions, even ones which borrowed heavily from other conquered cultures (such as Roman paganism) all bowed to a central moral code embedded in the society. Even Roman paganism showcased the underlying morality of the society which created and supported it.

I'm sorry to harp on so long about it, but this is a serious design flaw in most games, and a serious, gaping hole in the understanding of most Western-educated authors (game and otherwise); and hence why John's point about magic being tied up in religion in ancient times stands: even in the oldest religions, the priests were always the carriers of magical knowledge and knowledge in general.

For example, shamanism is the oldest form of religion on our world, and clearly, the shaman is the individual gifted with supernatural, magical powers. The same goes for any magical society of recent lineage (such as the Golden Dawn) you care to examine: following magical history and development, you find it steeped in nothing other than religious lore.

Throughout history, magic is never considered an arcane technology or science -- though study and examination are certainly part and parcel of it, as with science, the fundamentals are supernatural and religious in nature. Thus, like society, a society's magic is inseperable from its religion; even if the magic is reviled by the society at large (frex, check out Judaism's despisement of Qabbalhic practices, despite that they are not fiendish, but based wholly on attaining wisdom and knowledge of God through deeper study of Judaism).

This is a great deal to consider in regards to your game.

[madelf]

A couple important points I'd like to make, before I go any further...

1)This is a game. A fantasy game. It needs no more basis on the actual historical interrelationships of science, magic and religion than I care to give it.
2)Trying to apply real-world historical or religious viewpoints to a fantasy world is an exercise in futility. It is not our world. Things don't have to have developed along the same lines that they did in our world, because the world itself is different.

I can state factually that you are very, very mistaken in your assessments -- you are, in fact, 180 degrees off the mark.

I have to respectfully disagree. I am not a pagan priest, or a student of ancient religions, but I have read enough to indicate quite clearly to me that many pagan gods even had different aspects within the same entity that would be conflicting by modern standards of morality. And really whether that is accurate isn't really an issue, as I am not attempting to recreate a realistic historical setting.

Society "creates" religion to reinforce and uphold its social mores and concepts of right and wrong -- or vice versa, religion creates a foundation for society based on its social mores and customs.

I agree that in the world we know, societies create religions. However, in a fantasy world, where gods "walk the earth" and are not the direct result of human influence, this goes completely out the window. In a fantasy world, it is possible that the gods created religion, and the people follow it because the gods want them to. The rules are changed.

As you can see, the two are so interwoven, they are functionally inseperable, especially when discussing pre-modern civilizations (which relied on the temple and priests as the focal-point around which their entire society moved).

Again this only applies to the historical real world. In a fictional setting this can apply or not as the author sees fit. And even if I were trying to be accurate, I'm relatively certain that the entire society of the 19th century did not revolve around the temple and priests.

Polytheistic pagan religions enforce morality as much as monotheistic religions do, and have done so throughout time: the religious underpinings and beliefs of a society create a map of that culture and its moral beliefs, its accepted behaviors, and its views of the world and its workings. Pagan religions are thus equally as "obsessed with morality" -- that is, with seperating right action and wrong action, with ensuring correct social order is kept -- as are the monotheistic religions you reference.

I will bow to your greater knowledge in this area, and accept that this is true. It is still completely irrelevant.

I suggest you examine the ancient Chinese religion, Egyptian religion, and Norse religion to start with. I'm not talking about books of myths about the gods of those cultures; I'm talking about actually studying the religion itself, which resemble the myths about as much as real-life in the middle ages resembles fairy tales. The point, of course, being that the myths, like the fairy tale, are metaphors, not necessarily representative of real beliefs or social behaviors, actions, or events.

No offense, but I have a little too much on my plate right now to do exhaustive research of ancient religions for a game which is not intended to accurately reflect any ancient religion of our world.

For example, there is a lengthy chapter in the Poetic Edda with verses describing the path to wisdom, spoken by Odin. The beliefs reflected therein were immediately relevant to worshippers of Thor, Freyr, Odin, and any other Norse deity you care to name becuase they embodied the acceptable and correct behaviors of the Norse culture.

This goes back to your point of society creating religion. The dieties seemed right for the Norse, because they invented them for all intents and purposes. Things might have gone a little differently if Thor, Freyr, and Odin came down in person and started kicking ass until people fell in line.

Before I could answer to this, I would need to know if you were talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods and spirits, or a real pantheon of the same. Fantasy pantheons are largely fantastical crocks bearing no resemblance to any actual, real-world religion(s) or god(s) that does or ever has existed, even if and when they borrow names and mythologies.

I am talking about a fantasy pantheon of gods which is a largely fantastical crock bearing little resemblance to the actual real-world religion from which I have borrowed names and mythologies.
Well, actually I was talking about magic, but since it came up...

Unfortunately, much of what you're stating here seems to come from "gamebook knowledge" of how paganism or polytheistic societies operate(d) and behave(d), and gamebook knowledge is sorely lacking any realistic basis upon which to form opinions.

Actually nothing I'm stating here comes from game book knowledge. It comes from a casual aquaintence with mythology and a bit of light research. But, you really want to know why my concept sounds like a game book religion? I'm writing a game book.

I'm sorry to harp on so long about it, but this is a serious design flaw in most games, and a serious, gaping hole in the understanding of most Western-educated authors (game and otherwise); and hence why John's point about magic being tied up in religion in ancient times stands: even in the oldest religions, the priests were always the carriers of magical knowledge and knowledge in general.

Are you sure this is a design flaw, and not a concious decision made in the effort to keep an enjoyable fantasy game from being an historical treatise on ancient religions?
And why do people keep talking about ancient times and oldest religions?
The time period of my game corresponds to only about 150 years ago.

For example, shamanism is the oldest form of religion on our world, and clearly, the shaman is the individual gifted with supernatural, magical powers. The same goes for any magical society of recent lineage (such as the Golden Dawn) you care to examine: following magical history and development, you find it steeped in nothing other than religious lore.

Sorry, but this (as realistic as it may be) violates the basic premise of the magic system I am developing for my game. It cannot be tied up in religion.

Throughout history, magic is never considered an arcane technology or science -- though study and examination are certainly part and parcel of it, as with science, the fundamentals are supernatural and religious in nature. Thus, like society, a society's magic is inseperable from its religion

No.  It is not inseperable. In our history, it was not seperated. That does not mean that in a fictional setting it cannot be.

This is a great deal to consider in regards to your game.

As interesting as this is, and as usefull as it would be if I were doing a more realistic real-world setting with working magic type of game, this has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with my game.

You have to understand (well I guess you don't really have to, but it would be nice) that I don't really want this game to accurately reflect the real world. That is not my intent. All of the points brought up, with all the historical references, regarding the relationships between society, religion, and magic are all very interesting. It's almost enough to make me want to design a realistic game setting in order to use all of these ideas.
Really, this stuff is great. It's just not appropriate.
You're trying to place accurate and historical societal/religious judgements onto a world where those things simply don't belong.
You're trying to create a fantasy world that is very much like our world, except that all the un-scientific beliefs are true. I enjoy fiction of that type, and I would probably enjoy a game of that type. But that's not what this current project is about. This is about a world that is different than ours.