I don't know if this is useful for anything, it's more of a random idea I thought of and well, wanted to share. Maybe it can spark some ideas so I post it here.

Basically, think of every object as having a Form, a Use and an Essence.

Everything has this and magic is the ability to change these parameters. Basically if you have an Apple, then it's Form might be rather round, and maybe green or red, it tastes like apple, maybe a little sour, probably sweet. This is the FORM.

The Use of the Apple is that it can nourish someone, it can be eaten, if it's left alone it will slowly decompose and so on. It carries seeds inside which can grow to new apple trees.

The Essence of the Apple is what constitutes it's Apple-ness. Other things might look and taste like apples, but they're not apples unless their Essence is. Think about the difference between artificial flavours and natural flavours for example.

How is this useful? Well, magic will now be divided into these categories. Changing Form, Changing Use, Moving Essence.

You can change the Form and Use of things and you can move the Essence.

Turn Wrolf the Barbarian into a dragon? Change the Form and he will look like a dragon, but he can't fly (Use) and he can't breathe fire (Use). We can give Tuluk the Mage the ability to breathe fire by changing his Use. He will still look like Tuluk the mage but now has the ability to breathe fire. Now even if we change both Use and Form of Wrolf the Barbarian, we can't REALLY turn him into a dragon, because Wrolfs essence is always that of Wrolf. However, we can move Wrolf's essence into that of a dragon, and the dragon's essence somewhere else. An we might be able to fuse the essence of Wrolf and the dragon, changing Wrolf's personality in the process.

Anyway, all magic will be governed by these three factors. The extend of the changes will determine difficulty of the magic.

I think this will lend to a fairly neatly fairy tale-ish magic. For example, it's easy to change the form of the warriors to pigs. But they will still retain their use and their essence. This means that a lot of neat magical rules will naturally occur. Remember the tale of someone being turned into an animal and then having children, but the children were human or partly so? That would be make sense within these laws of magic.

Basically this metaphysical system allows a lot of secondary effects to naturally occur rather than having them postulated. This might be useful especially for more free magic systems.

Or something. Maybe I'm totally writing worthless stuff here. I just wanted to provide an alternative to the elements-based magic which is popular within the "compose magic yourself" style of systems. I don't feel those really give an answer to how secondary effects might be resolved.

Well that's all. Bye bye for now.

I like it. Glamour has always been one of my favorite magics which by your definition would be creating a form and a use with no essence (sort of like Star Trek holodecks...funny...if I like Glamour so much, why do I despise holodecks...).

You might want to combine these matrix style (like ars magica) with some abilities like "create", "alter", "summon", "suppress".

Create would allow you to create a form or a use out of nothing.
Alter would allow you to change one into something else
Summon would allow you to literally summon something from somewhere else (if you summoned all three).
Suppress would allow you to turn these off. Supressing Form might make someone invisible. Suppressing use might make someone blind or lame.

I'm a fan of mix and match spells.

I wasn't really thinking of it as a basis for create-your-own-spell type of mechanics. In general I find these create a little too artificial effects, and in particular they encourage optimal configurations, leading to exploration of system rather than anything else.

Actually, I was more thinking of it as guidelines for limiting magic and creating a limiting but consistent metaphysics to govern the magic.

Most magic systems after all DO suffer from the kitchen sink problem of every type of spell goes. I'm starting to believe that this is a BAD thing.

Anyway, I have a yet-to-be-articulated idea on how to actually build magic powers from these givens which does not entail the usual component based approach, which would be interesting if I could get it into tangible form. I'll post it if I come up with it.

I like it. It's a good idea. Keep it in your toolkit to use in your fairytale rpg. :)

I'm a huge fan of magic systems, their design, and use. You have a really groovy one here. And you're right, it leads to all sorts of intresting possibilities.

It would also work quite well with a ritual system... you use rituals which contain symbolic representations of the order of change you wish to make. For the man-to-pig spell intended to change the Form only, you could include symbolic representations of the form of man and pig- clothing for the man, a pig's skin for the pig.

You could go any number of ways with this scheme... spell list (though I'm loath to suggest it); noun-verb (as in Ars Magica); Discipline (as in Mage- specific skill for specific kind of magic)... really anything.

Very nice.

How would you implement such a system with functional rules?

Functional rules? I don't know that. Yet anyway.

Like you say, one could go pretty much anywhere with this set of basic metaphysics. It doesn't REALLY tell all that much practical stuff, in fact all it does is putting some limits on things.

If I'm to go out on a limb here mentioning a way to extend it:

The Use and the Form and even the Essence of the Apple arise naturally from the reality. However, this is not the true Apple. The apple becomes and apple when the true Apple is discriminated into something less.

The Mage can affect transformations of the form of the apple because is not its true form.

The Mage can create Use because the use of the apple is not its true Use.

Basically think of everything spontaneously arising as a natural consequence of its True Essence. The Mage has the ability to twist this spontaneous arising so that its form or its use becomes something different.

This is not limited to objects, space and time is subject to the same spontaneous arising. Thus time and space can be changed as well.

However infinite the possibilities might be for the magician, it would naturally require mastery of this form shaping, use creating, essence switching.

Whatever the means through which the magician achieves the magic, it is a skill to be learned, not a power to easily invoke.

"I have mastered a thousand transformations, the cosmos unfolds at my touch. But how far am I still from escaping my destiny"

On lesser levels, this skill amounts to a mere borrowing of powers or minor changes in form. On the godlike level the reality itself bends to the will of the mage.

But is not the mage him/her slave to the same magic? Well yes, since the mage too spontaneously arises from reality he/she too is bound by it.

Beside this you could add demons and gods who all naturally have magical powers.

Yadda yadda. Maybe not useful at all.

I don't see the difference between Form, Use and Essence. You claim that an apple being 'green' is Form, an apple being nourishing is 'Use' and an apple being an apple is 'Essence'. Yet, what is the difference between these three things? 'The apple is green' describes the way an apple interacts with photons. 'The apple is nourishing' describes a rather mroe complex interaction between the molecules of an apple and a human's digestive system, but we're still talking a physical interaction here. I don't see a categorial difference. I also fail to see how 'being an apple' could mean anything which is not described by 'form' and 'use'.

Now even if we change both Use and Form of Wrolf the Barbarian, we can't REALLY turn him into a dragon, because Wrolfs essence is always that of Wrolf.

Victor Gijsbers wrote: I don't see the difference between Form, Use and Essence. You claim that an apple being 'green' is Form, an apple being nourishing is 'Use' and an apple being an apple is 'Essence'. Yet, what is the difference between these three things? 'The apple is green' describes the way an apple interacts with photons. 'The apple is nourishing' describes a rather more complex interaction between the molecules of an apple and a human's digestive system, but we're still talking a physical interaction here. I don't see a categorical difference. I also fail to see how 'being an apple' could mean anything which is not described by 'form' and 'use'.

Victor Gijsbers wrote:

Pale Fire wrote: Now even if we change both Use and Form of Wrolf the Barbarian, we can't REALLY turn him into a dragon, because Wrolf's essence is always that of Wrolf.

In what way would Wrolf differ from a dragon if we didn't change his 'Essence?' Is there any observable difference between a 'Wrolf'-dragon and a real dragon?

Victor Gijsbers wrote: If I wish to change the hardness of a stick so I can beat someone up with it, are we talking Form or Use? Hardness is the form, beating someone up is the Use - so what do I use here?

Victor Gijsbers wrote: I think your metaphysics is rather vague, actually.

Victor Gijsbers wrote: 'The apple is green' describes the way an apple interacts with photons.

In what way would Wrolf differ from a dragon if we didn't change his 'essence'? Is there any observable difference between a 'Wrolf'-dragon and a real dragon?

If I wish to change the hardness of a stick so I can beat someone up with it, are we talking Form or Use? Hardness is the form, beating someone up is the Use - so what do I use here?

PF...I really like the structure you've come up with...go with that and see what kind of mechanics you can come up with.

Fang: God Damn man...quit theorizing and get this damn game done already. I want to play Scattershot with all these cool bits you keep describing (like the above dressing down of that hack metaphysical theory known as science. Just say "No" to the brainswashing dogma of the Technomancy)...not just hear about them.

I can see describing all objects (when it becomes relevent to do so) with certain FUNCTIONAL descriptors and axis..

Form gets a description- it is entirely sensory details here, because this is simply the perception of the thing.

Use gets a few ranked descriptors... if it really isn't relevent, then they get left at 0 and are unwritten. Only when relevent are they described. A stick might get a 1 in "Damage" in dicating that is the basis for injury when the stick is USed for such a purpose. It might get a 2 in "Work" to indicate all the possible practical uses for a stick. Change the Form with a glamour, and it retains the 1 "Damage" and 2 "Work".

A sword with Damage 5, Work 2, and Resist (indicating the strength of the metal) 3 could be changed to look like a simple walking stick...but retain all its Uses.


Another traditional magical hink which can easily be modeled with this sort of scheme is the idea that if a shape changer remains in another form for too long, he might forget his origional shape... easily modeled with this scheme. If left in an alternate Form for too long, a thing might begin to change on a fundamental level- actualy becoming in Use a thing like its Form... A sword transformed into a spoon might slowly become a spoon in use... only Essence would remain. To the uninitiated, this makes little difference...but to a mage, attuned to the true nature of things, it would be clear... a mage could sniff out these long-term changes.

I can even see orders or preservationist mages dedicated to preserving a hormony of Form, Use, and Essence... they hunt and reverse unnatural discrepencies between the three.

Ever seen the movie "Green Snake" ? Well there you go.

Animals with the right mystical and mental characteristics can try to rise above their normal Forms through will and magic... changing forst Form, then Use...and perhaps eventualy, essence.

Supernatural creatures can be created when Essence contridicts Form and Use... a Vampire has the Essence of a Demon, the Form of a Man, and a blend of Uses... some demonic, some human.

A lycanthrope has the Essence of a man, but alternates between two forms and two sets of Uses...

When a demon possesses a man, he supresses his Essence, suplanting it with his own...but reatins the Use and Form of the body... if he injects some of his own Use into the body, then there will be a corresponding change in From as well... he lashes out with the Use of his claws...and the host's hands briefly twist into tallons...


Chimeric monsters are created by fissuring and blending the constitutent elements of Form and Use. A Gryphon is created from lion and eagle elements... a mix of Forms and Uses. But what of its essence? Perhaps it is imbued with the essenc of some elemental creature through the ability o move essence?

Lots of kickass things you can do this this.

Another quick idea I thought of after recalling Green Snake...

This scheme makes a nice foundation for mystical martial arts...

You use specialized symbolic techniques to mimic to Form of something else, and briefly borrow the Use of that thing. Use Tiger technique to borrow a Tiger's quilities. Use Prowling Tiger Stance then lash out with Tiger's Claw Strike...

Lots of cool aplications.

Some great insights BW. That kind of structure is ideal for classical "fairy tale" approaches to magic.

An "amulet of protection" may simply be a suit of armor whose form has changed to that of a piece of jewelry, but which retains its armor useage.

The old alchemic quest for transmutation is clearly covered...flying broomsticks, the tales of knightly feasts which delight the senses but are neither filling nor nutritional...lots of great stuff here.

This seems an excellent metaphysics of magic (actually, historically magic is metaphysics) which, moreover, could easily be translated into game mechanics. We have Form, Use and Essence as the three basic "things" in the universe. Simply have three skills: Form Bending, Use Bending and Essence Shifting or whatever. Then you need a difficulty rating system; some changes of form will be easier to achieve than others, for example. Also, form changing will be easier than use bending which will be easier than essence shifting (probably), so learning these skills will require different expenditure of points (if you have a skill point system). Then, as for the 'spells', just leave it to player imagination.

Just as a side point the metaphysics described are very similar to actual historical theories of how things in the world are. In particular, medieval Islamic science, which was heavily influenced by Greek thought and Renaissance science/magic (the two are practically indistinguishable) are very concerned with form (accidents) and essence. Reading around on these topics, if you haven't already done so, will, I think, prove very useful. It could also lead to link-ins with religion/theology as well.

I don't think you've quite got it. In all the fairy tales I can think of, function always followed form. Calypso's pig-men ate like pigs and ran like pigs, and wizards that turn into dragons breathe fire.

I always hated the Dnd polymorph spells because the whole "you're a dragon now, but no you can't do anything with it" is just a game balance issue. Form and use should be the same thing. Instead, I'd shift the three terms over a bit.

I'd be inclined to call the first image or appearance instead of form. That would basically be glamour. Not illusion, because illusions are figments of the mind (which is a part of the modern mindset) while a glamour has a kind of psuedo, lesser reality. This hides the lights of the celebration in the elfhill, or makes a wonderous feast that leaves you famished an hour later.

The second term would then be form instead of use. This involves a real change: The wizard becomes the dragon and scorches the crops, or the man becomes a wolf and leaves behind bodies with throats torn out by sharp teeth.

The third term is still essence. This is the inner nature of the thing, the spirit, the soul, almost the platonic abstract. Changing essence can only occur naturally. A wizard can only move it around. This does include things that our modern mindset would include under form or image. Specifically, procreation lands here because we're not dealing with biology.

That, I think, would be the real challenge of a making a magic system along these lines work. Some quantification of the the differences between the premodern mindset and the way your audience today views the world. It's quite different, but it has to be communicated effectively if you want to capture the spirit of Baba Yaga, the Ice Queen or Gwydion.

-Pat