What Magic Is

[Jonathan Walton]

I was reading some Forge threads, looking at various magic systems that people were working on, when something struck me:

Magic is really just a player-empowerment tool, resisting the GM's total control of the game.  This is partially why it's so ubiqitous in roleplaying.

I mean look at Nobilis, if you want an exaggerated case.  There, the magic/miracle system empowers players more than just about any other game, encouraging them to take other Stances and manipulate the imagined world.  Next, imagine a Universalis mod where the world-creation system is just the magic system, powers given to all-powerful mages or gods who manipulate the imagined world.

Magic is just a method of handing story control back to the players in small controlled doses.  Calling it "magic" hides what it actually does, functionally, within the social contract.  This also means that every "magic system" if employed properly, could just be a way for players to get more control.  Look at Donjon, where players determine if there is a secret trapdoor or what's in the next room.  A magic system by another name.

Of course, this may not be anything new, but I guess this is my week for making realizations I should have long ago.

[Christopher Weeks]

I don't buy it.

A magic system might sometimes be a vector for players to have authorial power, but I don't think that's the normal case.

Let's look at magic in D&D.  How is Magic Missle any more or less an "empowerment tool" than a crossbow?  I don't see that magic system increasing the players' potential for authorial behavior.  Even though I used the simplest case, jumping to Wish, I still don't really think that description fits.  The DM decides how the wish is interpreted and fulfilled and there is a rich tradition of the GM screwing the wishful player if they can think of a clever way to do so.  The GM has total control -- or doesn't...but not because of magic.

Nobilis seems to encourage the players to generate lots of story within the framework established by the game and the particular HG.  And the whole system really revolves around the miraculous powers and how they are a tool for the P/Cs to do that.  But ultimately, it could be run exactly as a typical D&D game.  And I'm pretty sure that there are some very Gamist Nobilis games out there.

I love different magic systems.  I think that magic is often the most fun to read in a new game.  But I don't think they're particularly a narative asset.

But maybe I'm missing something; I'm still new to all this,

Chris

[John Kim]

Magic is really just a player-empowerment tool, resisting the GM's total control of the game.  This is partially why it's so ubiqitous in roleplaying.
...
Magic is just a method of handing story control back to the players in small controlled doses.  Calling it "magic" hides what it actually does, functionally, within the social contract.  This also means that every "magic system" if employed properly, could just be a way for players to get more control.  

I suspect that for mechanistic magic systems, this may to some degree be true.  If magic works regardless of circumstances, then it is an ability that cannot easily be neutralized without blatantly violating the social contract.  Personally, I have had the opposite experience with magic.  In my games, magic tends to be a mysterious force.  It can be hard to get the players to be pro-active about it, because the player isn't sure of her ground.  

Then again, I seem to have an unusual experience or point-of-view about  player control.  A lot of people talk about GM dominating the game.  In my experience the basic contract of having players design and control the PCs means that the players have dominant story control.  As a player, I usually feel limited primarily by the other players.  GM control of story usually comes about because the players feel like they should do what he would like, because of the work he put in.

[Valamir]

Hmmm, I think you're both essentially write.

I don't think that what's being handed to the player is actually "Story" Control, per se; but rather an ability to effect and alter the environment at a scale grater than mere swords and guns.

Handing that level of ability to influence the environment to the player, does give the player a greater degree of power, and when the "story" is essentially driven by the environment one of the side effects can be added influence over the story.

If you take it from an extreme example.  Consider the worlds most railroaded D&D dungeon.  Magic (at higher levels anyway) is essentially a free ticket for the player to de rail the rail road.  

Take the impact of a Dig spell on a carefully laid out dungeon maze.
the impact of a charm spell on a key NPC
the impact of a sleep spell on the super watchful guard.
the impact of a wall spell to close off an avenue of attack
etc.

To the extent that the "story" requires the characters to be lost in the maze, to get lied to by the NPC, to get caught by the guard, or to get ambushed from behind; these spells have effectively allowed the player to alter that story.

If you've ever been in a heavily railroaded dungeon, think back to all of the desperate excuses DMs will give for why the magic didn't work (the dungeon walls are laced with adamantine which is immune to dig spells, the NPC mysteriously makes his Save 4 times in a row even though he's 0 level, the guard is standing inside an anti magic circle or has a talisman of sleep protection...etc;  All of which is just the DM trying to protect his soveriegn control over his "story".


So...the more a story relies on a certain structure, and the more magic allows players to mess with, unravel, by pass, or otherwise modify that structure...the more impact a player has on the story.

In Nobilis the structure is more open and full of surreal crazyness.  Nobilis magic gives the player the ability to engage in his own surreal crazyness and so similarly impact the story in a way that a non magical entity in the game could not.

[Bill Cook]

As a player, I usually feel limited primarily by the other players.

Yes.  Lord, yes.  In a highly polar dynamic, established leaders will drive the action for the group, newbies will be cowed and "just hanging out" types will go along, really only perking up when the GM says, "Roll for initiative," or "Save vs Poison."

With more balanced consideration, the lead floats like a buoy from player to player.  Part of this is gracious play from player to player.  Another part is the GM tuning in to varying the spotlight and encouraging involvement (off base or otherwise, just to get 'em in the mix.)  Part of it is a system lacking in overt goals and explicit structure of play.

GM control of story usually comes about because the players feel like they should do what he would like, because of the work he put in.

Probably.  Most GM's I've gamed with are grateful to be engaged.  If you've got a guy who's game for "let's see what happens" and he clearly initiates the group to that approach, you can really dig in.  With a more tightly scripted method, you spend a lot of time waiting to get your blocking for the scene.

[C. Edwards]

I'm having trouble seeing beyond the "lumpley principle" here. Magic, crossbows, etc. just being specific ways for the players to exert influence during play.

Am I missing something?

-Chris

[damion]

Jonathan,
              Wow, you just explained why I always play magic types in DnD...
I agree with you, although I don't think it's intentional, more like another example of incoherence.

I think any player ability with an 'open ended' effect can do this. By 'open ended' I mean an effect described in terms of the game world, rather than the mechanical system.  Consider
transporters in Star Trek (yeah, yeah A.C. quote...blah blah blah), or hacking in games that
support it.

[Valamir]

I'm having trouble seeing beyond the "lumpley principle" here. Magic, crossbows, etc. just being specific ways for the players to exert influence during play.

Am I missing something?

-Chris

Yeah.  A big something.  A crossbow has a defined use that the GM can prepare for.  It is used to inflict damage on an enemy.  The chance to hit is predictable, the amount of damage is predictable.  The DM can account for the crossbow.  If you have a big whopper crossbow...no biggie, the DM just takes that into account when setting up the baddies to shoot.

By contrast magic, is hugely unpredictable.  There are alot of ways to "break the set-up" and players who are Magic User whizzes are very very adept at them.  Its amazing the kind of uses an MU player can find for Unseen Servant and a Fire Trap spell.  When you throw in the MacGyver wannabes declaring how they'll use heat metal to make the bars expand and crack the masonry you get players who essentially have the ability to go around whatever the DM had planned.

You can't do that with a crossbow.

Now this is an extreme example, but it demonstrates how magic in D&D can take "the story" away from the GMs carefully mapped plans and towards something more to the player's choice.  

"No I won't play riddle games with the Troll to get across the bridge.  I'll simply cast a wall of stone horizontally across the chasm and make my own bridge"

"No I'm not trapped by the cave in with no where to go but deeper into the Drow kingdom.  I'll simply cast 5 dig spells and creat a new tunnel going around the debris and taking us back to the surface"

Simple examples to be sure, but you can see where magic is leading to player empowerment.

[Christopher Weeks]

Ralph,

It sounds to me like you're just pointing out that magic is really powerful.  I agree.  But a clever player could also disassemble their crossbow, use the string as a snare to catch pigeons, burn the stock to generate enough charcoal to leave a message on the stone wall, use the metal bow to wedge the door open, and roll the two-ton gold statue out on the remaining bolts.  Magic is more versatile than the crossbow, but I belive the difference you are illustrating is a difference of degree rather than of kind.

And the DM presumably knows what spells the PCs have access to.  They can plan for many of the uses to which those spells may be put, just as they can for many of the uses of a crossbow.

Now, maybe pragmatically a difference in degree is enough.  Certainly by the time you get to the kind of power level displayed by Nobilis characters, the number of things that could happen with the "magic" is absurdly large and unpredictible and so what you're saying is really, really true.  But it's still just providing more of the same kind of abilities to the character that the crossbow provides

Chris(W)

[Jonathan Walton]

Chris does have a good point.  In "Step on Up" conflicts between players (which includes players vs. GM), resources that are already built into the social contract become tools for arguing for your view of what should happen.  So if my wizard has the Dig spell, I cna whip that out as ammo for the declaration that I should be able to tunnel.  Likewise, more creative MacGyver players can do the same things with ordinary game objects.  How many times have players in a Roman-era game tried to make Molotov Cocktails or proto-gunpowder?

My argument, though, was that any magic/psionics/superpowers/super-technology etc. that potentially has a kind of open-ended, interpretative nature is simply a redelegation of power back to the players.  Sure, the GM can build all sorts of silly reasons why things shouldn't work, if they're really determined to railroad, but that just shows that they're losing control.  They have to resort to other methods to keep the game moving in pre-determined directions.

Obviously, there are levels of freedom and power here.  D&D-style spellcasting is pretty limited and causal.  But there is enough space for interpretation that it can be a railroading GM's biggest headache because magic users always do things that disrupt your plot.  Ask any hardcore D&D control freak GM and see if it isn't true.

When you get systems that allow you to create your own spells/superpowers/etc. the freedom and potential for disruption gets bigger.  When you allow players to create things on the fly, it increases still more.  And obviously, if the degree that players can affect the game becomes greater, each act will have a more meaningful impact.  So really you have both Power and Freedom leading to greater and greater player control.

This isn't to say that players will necessarily use this new story control for any particular end.  Magic is not necessarily Narrativist unless the magic user really wants to support themes in the narrative.  But he could just as easily decide to smite his buddies or create a castle made of glass.

[Bill Cook]

I've always thought that applications of magic particular to a function are empowering and yet not overwhelming to the plot.  All my examples are from movies.

In Singer's X-Men, Storm could call a lightning strike, but it took time to brew the clouds, and even then, it had to come from the sky (instead of streaking from her hands.)  Magneto could pull some devious tricks, using metal to act against his targets, mutant and human alike.  But he couldn't make force fields or lift people into the air by influencing magnetic particles in their blood (both of which he does over and over in the comics.)

In Jackson's LOTR, Gandalf chiefly uses light to create awe and protective fields (e.g. bellowing at Bilbo in his Hobbit hole, face of light to the goblin swarm in the Halls of Moriar, arc of light to bar the Balrog's passage at the Bridge of Khazadhum.)  But he still had to duck from the archers, wield a sword in a melee and ride his ass off to reach the Riders of Rohan.

How can their not be negotiations over intent of spell texts and how it affects game balance?  And for more interpretive wordings, it just ups the trust required to share a similiar spirit of exploration.

When I ran a Hubris Story Engine 3-shot, I pushed the players to introduce plot elements, create setting and direct characters (theirs and others) as necessary to explain a scene resolution.

[list=1]
[*]The party wounded and captured a leader for the Necromancer's cult army in an upstairs hall of a whore house in a town that was a nexus of conversion and recruitment.  Thousands of men were swarming the building, running upstairs to breach the barricaded doors.  They succeeded their roll to escape.

[*]GM: So what happens?
[*]PC: Well, I guess the cult members and soldiers are rushing the front and sides.
[*]GM: No, actually, their surrounding the building.
[*]PC: No, I'm saying they are.
[*]GM: Oh, gotcha.
[*]PC: So, we open a window and jump out the back.
[*]GM: In his weakened state, the general may be killed!  Then you wouldn't get to interrogate him.
[*]PC#2: Well, actually, there's a wagon full of hay that provides a soft landing.
[/list:u]

[*]The party is tracking cult members as they make their way to a secret location for a meeting.

[*]PC: So why are we after these guys?
[*]GM: You're trying to figure out where an ancient sword that can harm the dead is kept so that you can use it to slay the necromancer, dissolve his power base and secure the kingdom.
[*]PC: Hey!  Wait a minute!  Along the way, while we're following these guys, I come across one of those types of swords in the alley!
[*](All laugh.)
[*]PC#2: Yeah, the Hell with following these clowns.  Let's go back to the pub and get drunk!
[*]GM: Very funny . . .
[/list:u]
[/list:o]

You're either in the spirit or you're a spoiler.

[Windthin]

Magic is a device, a tool, as I see it.  It's part of the setting, a part most underestimate (I personally put forth the theory that whenever you have magic, you have the potential for things that the tech level of the setting would otherwise not allow -- better alloys through fire magic, better medicine through healing magic, without necessarily understanding the full force of it, so on).  It is a potent force, but it is not without its own boundaries.  Bad usage of magic sees it as a cure-all, there to do the impossible when you want it done.  Good usage of magic treats it more as a tool, even when it IS a mysterious force; it is not there to solve every little thing, but it can be potentially wielded to good effect.  Good usage also takes into account, I feel, the full ramifications magic has upon a society; a problem with many settings is that magic is introduced and then the rest of the setting is left alone, to run its course rather than truly incorporating the magic into it.  So you wind up with a "medieval" (I hate that word in conjunction with fantasy, but that's another rant) setting that also has magic tacked onto it, or a "modern" setting that also has magic tacked onto it.  I agree, though, that a creative PC can do many amazing things without magic.  I had a character who was notorious for the tricks he pulled off; he occassionally made use of magic for this, but more often worked with his own two hands, his wits and whatever was at hand.  No one can deny, though, that magic, applied intelligent, can make many tasks easier.  I don't see it, though, as a means of competing with the GM for power, I believe because magic DOES ultimately have limits; it exists within the bounds of both the setting and the system, is a part of it, and when well layed-out, is merely one more tool the player and GM both have to work with.

[M. J. Young]

(I personally put forth the theory that whenever you have magic, you have the potential for things that the tech level of the setting would otherwise not allow -- better alloys through fire magic, better medicine through healing magic, without necessarily understanding the full force of it, so on).

The problem is that I would say the same thing about technology (and psionics and body skills as well)--that you can do absolutely anything with any one of these, if the limits are removed. You can argue that Star Trek levels of technology manage to obviate the need for magic by using technology instead (and you would be correct). So while what you say is true, that you say it that way suggests that magic is somehow more than these other things, when it's merely another approach to accomplishing goals.

Good usage also takes into account, I feel, the full ramifications magic has upon a society; a problem with many settings is that magic is introduced and then the rest of the setting is left alone, to run its course rather than truly incorporating the magic into it.  So you wind up with a "medieval" (I hate that word in conjunction with fantasy, but that's another rant) setting that also has magic tacked onto it, or a "modern" setting that also has magic tacked onto it.

This assumes that merely because magic is present it is ubiquitous; that doesn't follow.

It is pretty common in our age to assume that if a technology is known, it becomes freely available. Even with technology, that's not really true. I probably can't do gene splicing in the privacy of my own home, because the obstacles to entry are too high (given that I didn't major in the biological sciences when I had a chance--but then, Ron probably can't do gene splicing in his basement, despite being in the field generally). A lot of people who studied physics can tell you how to build a nuclear bomb; even I can tell you the basics of it, but I couldn't actually design a working bomb--and even those who can design a working bomb can't easily build one. Yet technological societies generally take the stance that more people educated in how to do these things will mean greater advances in the field and a great deal of trickle-down--I might not be able to build or operate a  nuclear reactor, but some of my electricity comes from the fact that someone can do so.

That same attitude is not found among practitioners of magic in medieval societies. First, there is an attitude that magic requires a lifetime of dedication, and those with a casual interest need not apply. Second, those who know how to use magic, even if they in general want to help others, are unlikely to be invested in doing so often enough to have a major impact on society. They're outnumbered. So if plague breaks out in London, and a hundred thousand people are suffering and dying of it, even if there are a hundred clerics able to heal the sick, they're going to be overworked and hardly put a dent in the spread of the disease. Adventurers are a privileged class in society: they are personal friends of people who know magic. There aren't so many of these people around. I dare say that if the party cleric decided to heal a few people in the village, before the week was out he'd have lines outside his door every morning of people begging for his kindness, and he'd never get anything else done.

So while sometimes indeed the impact of magic on society is not well considered, too often the efforts to consider it amount to a technologist's view of the most efficient way to apply magic, ignoring entirely how the wizards and priests view what they do and why they do it. Sure, if your wizard's college puts out a hundred magic users a year, you've flooded the countryside with them and are going to have impact; but most magic users are the sole apprentice of another aging magic user who has had maybe two or three such students in his life, one of two of which have since died.

As to the rest, I agree.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

I disagree with the general case that magic returns powers to the players.  Having played Mage, with its extraordinary degree of freedom and power through magic, I don't feel there was any significant difference in the player/GM distribution of authority.  Magic powers can be revoked by GM's, a feature that occurs frequently enough in the source material as to be unremarkable.

In fact I have come to think that magic has a different function; it symbolically alienates the player from their actions as a character.  Magic serves as a massive signpost that this is Not Real Life, inasmuch as I'm referring to psionics ro what have you as well.  The different, fiucitonal world operates under different, fictional rules, and this malkes then content of the fictional world less threatening and more accessible.

[Jack Aidley]

Interestingly (or perhaps not) I've always found that in D&D and similar games it's the non-magic users who wield the power. Why? Because if they choose to go one way and the magic users go the other, it's the magic users who die.