While I am sure every person here has a different idea of what magick is, why it exists and how it should function in a game world I thought it might be interesting to address it anyhow.

The way I see it, magick is a force which is tangible and real but simply not in the purely physical sense of reality as we know it. For instance, making a fireball appear and hurtle toward a target surely is not a NORMAL thing to see. But it is at least loosely connected to the physical laws of reality.

Now, how does that fireball become real? The way I visualize it...the mage must understand how fire operates within the real world. He must also understand how things travel (at least to some degree) in order to make it go from him to the target. He must then make this knowledge into a physical reality through force of will and control it through his own limited understanding of the existing forces of nature.

thus a TRUE mage would be capable of creating any effect, so long as he could grasp the rudimentary aspects of reality such as time, movement and the other similar forces.

However, many RPGs focus on a list of spells rather than a broad spectrum of limitless powers. Do you view this as ideal? I think a more Ars Magicka or Mage:The Ascension style system if vastly superior in pretty much every concievable way.

So, what are your preferences? List of Spells, Unlimited Possibilities, or Other? Why? How should magick function?

It should function exactly as it needs to function to fill the role required of it in the setting.

Magic is not a force, physical, realistic, or otherwise.

Magic is a plot device. Period.


But more importantly is there some specific question or application of magic you wanted to discuss? I fear your rather open ended question will result in little more than an opinion poll...which is generally discouraged around here.

But an analysis of a specific application and its effects on play would make for an interesting thread.

The way you described magic working is very much the way I see qi working, and thus magic as well. My theory on magic in most of my games is that it is just a form of qi control (where qi is the eergy created by the electromagnetic fields produced by organisms combined with subtle energy) that sometimes uses hand signals and words as a focus. I see the energy either being gathered from the things around you and channeled through yourself or simply drawing on your own reserves of energy, which you have more innate control of.

I prefer the Limitless Possibilities aspect, because it makes sense with my own theory. If the user understands what the energy they are manipulatiing is (in my games' case it is usually qi, so electromagnetism produced by the cells as well as subtle energy that is inherent in all things) and you understand what you are trying to do with said energy (force the air particles in front of you to superheat and combust into flame, redirecting many other particles to feed the flame and then using fields of energy to force it towards your target) then you can do it, as long as you have the energy available to do such a thing. This also leads to the idea, in a game world, that someone can have more energy than another but still be able to do less with it.

In a lot of stories you read about how people have a certain potential for their energy - a maximum level that it will reach. So, it is a natural assumption that the people that have the highest potential can do the most and are the most powerful - which is untrue. Someone with limited knowledge and a lot of energy could create a fireball as per the example above, but spend way more energy by heating EVERY air particle they want in a fireball, while a more knowledgeable user would heat one or two particles and feed them with more, thus using less energy to get the same effect.

So, now that I've said my two sense, I will restate my answer: I prefer the Unlimited Possibilities type of magic.

As a side note: If there was anything scientifically incorrect with my example, don't worry too much, just trying to make an example. :D

Heya,

I second Val's post. Magic might work that way in *your* game, but it might not work that way in mine or anyone else's for that matter. What you have written Sayter and Lonoto are fine and dandy, but they might not be applicable to any other game or design philosophy. Magic is, as Val described it, a plot device. It is not a core component that makes a game like Character, Setting, System, and so on are. Magic is a part of these things, not the whole.

Now, if you were to ask something like, "Is what I have proposed internally consistent and plausible within the game world I am presenting?" then that is something we can answer difinitively. Your question, as it stands, is just too wide open atm. :)

Peace,

-Troy

I want magic in my campaign to behave in a way that seems intuitive both to me and my players. That way we are on the same wavelength when it comes to imagining how a spell will work or what effects are possible. I want to know enough about it to be able to extrapolate to situations that haven't yet occurred, and to do so in a way that my players will agree with me on the results and limitations.

Or am I just stating the blindingly obvious...?

Tom B.

So you want a system that [edit: sorry, didn't finish this thought] has some internal consistency to avoid arguments in the group.

Fine, but what do you want this system to be for?

Examples:
D&D's list o' spells are there to provide tactical options, creating a character type that is limited in direct physical combat, but versatile in many other fashions.

In Riddle of Steel, flexible and extremely powerful magic is provided to represent a dangerous power alien to the normal man.

In Heroquest, magic represents a character's connection to his myths and religious culture. Magical abilities are modeled after his god's mythical powers, the spirits of the land around him, or the power he draws from pure essence, depending on his personal affiliations.

sayter wrote: thus a TRUE mage would be capable of creating any effect, so long as he could grasp the rudimentary aspects of reality such as time, movement and the other similar forces.

However, many RPGs focus on a list of spells rather than a broad spectrum of limitless powers. Do you view this as ideal? I think a more Ars Magicka or Mage:The Ascension style system if vastly superior in pretty much every concievable way.

So, what are your preferences? List of Spells, Unlimited Possibilities, or Other? Why? How should magick function?

Albert of Feh wrote: Fine, but what do you want this system to be for?

Albert of Feh wrote: So you want a system that [edit: sorry, didn't finish this thought] has some internal consistency to avoid arguments in the group.

Fine, but what do you want this system to be for?

Examples:
D&D's list o' spells are there to provide tactical options, creating a character type that is limited in direct physical combat, but versatile in many other fashions.

In Riddle of Steel, flexible and extremely powerful magic is provided to represent a dangerous power alien to the normal man.

In Heroquest, magic represents a character's connection to his myths and religious culture. Magical abilities are modeled after his god's mythical powers, the spirits of the land around him, or the power he draws from pure essence, depending on his personal affiliations.

Well, in my game world there are two vastly different forces at play, both coudl be considered Magick to the observer though their diffrences are extreme.

The "main" focus of my game is Dreamers. These individuals cal pull their visions for dreams and into the real world. There is literalyl no limit (aside form what their stats allow them to accomplish) to what can be created.

magick is a counterforce. No dreamer can use magick, and no magick user can be a dreamer. Dreamers are not born as such, they just sort of wake up one day after a certain set of events take place with these new powers they barely understand.

so I was essentially trying to establish how to differentiate magick from the dreamers powers. and I think I have succeeded to a degree. Much as I dislike spell lists, in this setting it makes a lot more sense both as a plot device and a general rule to have it work off skills (Occult, Demonology, Magick Lore, etc) and placed in several "schools". Dreamers are intuitive, and dont NEED to understand their powers. They simply imagine things, and they can happen. MAgick is more rigid, and has set requirements that must be met to use the energy efficiently.

the main issue now ios coming up wit a balance of sorts, which fits the setting i have created.

Rather than a thread like this determining how magic works, it would be better of figuring out rules for the players to use, that help them determine how magic works.

All the questions on 'how magic should work' are exploratory questions. They are ideal to answer via play, rather than forge technical discussion.

If the question gets answered in a thread like this, then it stops being something to explore and instead becomes a means to explore something else (As Ralph puts it, a plot device).

It's the same urge to resist in writing metaplot...don't write how the metaplot resolves. That's the players job to explore. And for the question 'how does magic work', resist resolving yourself how it works. Give players tools/rules to aid them in resolving that.

As most gaming stuff comes from historical, mythological, or cultural sources, I think we can look there to establish how magic works in game. There are a wealth of different models that all get thrown in under the heading "magic", and in designing your game it would probably be helpful to, if not just choose one, be aware of the distinctions.

Model 1: The Shaman

This is one of the oldest places magic surfaced- in ancient tribes you had the shaman. There are some interesting differences between African, European, South American and Native American shamanic characters, but I'll leave those details up to you to research if you want to get into it. The concept of the Shaman is the mystical guide- the walker between two worlds. He doesn't excersize authority over the spirits, but rather knows them and acts as a liason.

Model 2: The Wise Witch

Very similair to the Shaman, but with some more feminine characteristics. She does not initiate people into the spiritual world, but interacts with the spirits herself. She is more a keeper of secrets than a guide. Instead of associating her with hallucinagens and mystical enlightenment, think of inexplicable cures and rites that she carries out herself.

Model 3: The Fantastic Witch

The inquisition and several fairy tales are responsible for this one. The fantastic witch signs the black book of Satan and sells her sole to him. She is the inverse of a nun- marrying the devil instead of Christ. She is a bit like the cultist model presented below interpreted into a Christian theology, but with a few special changes. For more on this one read the Malleus Maleficarum. Her male counterpart- the warlock- never really gained the same popularity in pop culture and seemed to fade more into the Cultist model presented below.

Model 4: The Priest

This was the new incarnation of the Shaman and the Wise Witch after the rise of monotheism (sorry I'm being so European, it was also present for a long time in India, Tibet, China etc. with Hinduism and Buddhism, but I'm not nearly as well versed in that.) Traditionally Priests had far less magickal prowess than their predessesors, as magick is usually taught as evil in organized religions (at least in the West- again I know little about the East). They usually had exorcism or banishment powers, but were absolutely never seen as wielding power over their god, they were always just supplicants.

Model 5: The Monk

This is the category I decided on for manipulation of ki energy, or whatever else you want to call it. The monk achieves his affects through direct application of will and this has a lot of permutations that I didn't get into a lot here. A really good place to look for this one in Star Wars universe type stuff- jedis are just about perfect monks, as I'm using the phrase here.

Model 6 The Cultist

There are really two pretty different sources for the cultist. You have ancient sources that arose in polytheistic cultures- the Thugees in India and the cult of Thoth in Egypt, and then you have the fatalistic reaction to modernism in Lovecraft and such, that has beings which are utterly alien and the powers that serve them. In any case, this is the connecting model between the people who gain power and the supplicants of greater forces. The cultist follows their god fanatically, but in turn is granted great power. The actual mechanic of magic in this sense is that the God either has a region in which they can grant boons, or they can affect the ritualist in some way. In the first model, you have magic accessed through ceremony and ritual and in the previous one it's generally either individual spells or individual effects (the cultist might sacrifice a person in order to receive the mark of their god on their forehead,)

Model 7: The Alchemist

This model arose from enlightenment Europe, as Church's authority was being replaced by science. The Alchemist treads the line between mysticism and science in a very old school way. He achieves magical effects through the laws of nature, but those laws are largely derived from mystical postulates. For more on this read Agrippa, Albertus Magnus, etc.... or, for a omre accesible reference, try www.levity.com/alchemy.

Model 8: The Freemason

Early 20th century, the Freemason has the model of very weak magick, but a very strong magician. It is based on an ethos of secrecy and superiority, and is similair to Alchemy in the respect that the philosophy that accompanied the magic was as important as the actual affects achieved. This is probably not something great for PC's to look into, unless you have a really RP heavy campaign.

Model 9: The Weird Scientist

This model holds that Magic is part of nature, and that traditional scientists are simply too close-minded to explore more esoteric realms. In it, fragments of old magickal concepts above are utilized in a more modern setting... not to say that you can't achieve this in a fantasy setting, you just need to combine extreme erudition with an objective stance on how magic works.

Model 10: Aleister Crowley

Essentially, translate the Will to Power into practical mystical terms, and you have this theory on magick. It holds that every action is magickal, and those actions that appear magickal are just greater applications of will than normally exist. This is similair to the monk model, but instead of a general ethos of supplication, it is extremely pro-individualist. The concept is that the universe is an extension of the self, and as the individual has control over the self, it has control over the universe. It says that all of magick is a reiteration of tension from the reconciliation of opposed forces.

Model 11: The DnD Wizard

This should have gone way up there on the time line, but this is a predecessor to Alchemy. The ancient Greeks and such had a lot of this, it was essentially when science was so young that it was almost all incorrect, which to us today makes it seem like they were practicing magick. This is the case with elementalism (magic based on the structure of the universe as fire/earth/wind/water). Sometimes though, it just involved adding mystical connotation to scientific pursuits, as did Pythagoras.

These were the ones that occured to me most strongly, and it seemed that any others were pretty much combinations of these models, or else so slightly different that they weren't worth mentioning.

Hope this helped,
Nick

I have always liked the way magic was presented in the Vincent Price / Peter Lorre film "The Raven". Achieving greater skill meant a lot.


1. First, you have your basic mages. These are guys and gals who are considered to be the lowest ranking mages. They have their robes and have proven their understanding of the basic skills. They are easy to recognize because they must use props, arcane words and gestures, to cast spells --some assembly required.

2. Then you have mages that can cast spells by word and gesture. These are your basic mid-range practitioners. Think D&D wizards.

3. And finally at the top of the pile are those who can cast spells with gestures alone. These are the heavy hitters. No bat wings or bizarre mutterings needed --just point and shoot.

I think Nick's post is very useful and drives at what I see as the heart of the issue: all the magical types outlines know secrets. Nominally this includes the D&D M-user, but in fact it does not because the secrets are themselves just a plot device to obtain spells. IMO it is this "secret insight" aspect of magic and mysticism that is mostly missing from RPG, and leaves magic feeling flat and unexciting.

Magic is a conscious effort to understand the unconscious mind. It is a system of allegorical, mythological, and symbolic language that allows us to communicate messages that cannot be communicated with language.

In other words, magic is poetry.

I have no idea if this will help anybody write a game system, but it's the philosophy I'm using for this game: http://www.wicked-dead.com/secret .