Topic: Another magic thread
Started by: kaworuiskool
Started on: 9/20/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/20/2002 at 8:41am, kaworuiskool wrote:
Another magic thread
Before I go further, lemme say that I did my homework and there have been three threads with magic in the title in this forum. Since Ron said long ago that a magic thread would be cool, I'm hoping three hasn't exhausted the realm of possiblities.
So, here's the idea. Too many magic discussions get bogged down in apple/orange comparisons. I propose finding out what page someone is on by asking them how they'd classify various magic types. Listen to their taxonomy, you'll learn their thought process.
For example, I use a hierarchy. At the top is source and wielder. Source is where magic comes from/how it works. Wielder is how it's used, why certain people can use it, how they do so, etc. For example, ley lines are source being influenced by location.
So, now I can discuss my own world within those terms. It's on a planet that's gradually becoming aware thru the life on it's surface, and magic is it's untapped power being accessed by those with the genes allowing them to do so. Having the ability doesn't make a mage-they must learn a skill that uses it. So, a fire mage has learned to channel that energy for superheating materials into plasma. (by the way, has anyone noticed how the four elements map nicely to the states of matter? Makes a more plausible explanation for their use as labels.) If I were to run it as an rpg, I'd need a 'magic ability' widget in character creation, which allows magic skills.
Hope this stimulates someone. It'd be nice if others chimed in and broke down their ideas by prefacing them like this.
On 9/20/2002 at 3:27pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
I love magic discussions.
But what are you looking for? Feedback on your taxonomy method of determining what sort of magic system someone has? Discussion of the system that you mention?
What?
Mike
On 9/20/2002 at 3:44pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
Hiya,
Have you seen the two discussions from the old Sorcerer mailing list, archived at the Sorcerer website? It's only a beginning, but it contains some ideas that serve as my foundation for talking about these things.
Best,
Ron
On 9/20/2002 at 7:36pm, kaworuiskool wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
Thanks, Ron. Very useful link there. I was more thinking in terms of identifying what a person wants magic to be, before I go tying down game related things. After all I need to know the former to do the latter correctly. Oh, and I'm not looking for comments on my own idea, as I'm of the opinion that my opinions are interesting only to me. I'm really looking for either "Yes, that's an interesting way of looking at it/No, that's restating what I already know."
On 9/20/2002 at 8:48pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Re: Another magic thread
kaworuiskool wrote: I propose finding out what page someone is on by asking them how they'd classify various magic types. Listen to their taxonomy, you'll learn their thought process.
For example, I use a hierarchy. At the top is source and wielder. Source is where magic comes from/how it works. Wielder is how it's used, why certain people can use it, how they do so, etc. For example, ley lines are source being influenced by location.
I use a 'effects' approach. Everything is rated in terms of the effects it has (and little else). Also when a person crafts their own magical effect/ability, I ask them to consider five aspects, Initiation, Carrier/Medium, Effect, Dispersal, and Character.
To understand Initiation (which covers your Source and Wielder), consider where the magic comes from, how the user triggers it and how it is directed. For Carrier/Medium, think about what actually transmits the magic to the target, how it looks, and how/if it can be blocked. When they determine the effect on the medium, they have to think about what the transmission of this magic does to the intervening air or space (or if it simply 'appears at the subject'). Next they'll consider what Effect this magic has on its target and any possible side effects. Then they must consider what happens at Dispersal, where does the Carrier go? Is it used up? What happens to the affected Medium? Finally, what intrinsic qualities give the magic its Character? Does this limit its accessibility?
Let's take a couple of examples:
A Fireball Spell:
• Initiation: speak mystical phrases, dance about, windup and the pitch. It goes where thrown.
• Carrier/Medium: it's a ball of fire that gives off light and burns anything it touches. Does not depend on thrower's actual strength.
• Effect: explodes on impact or at predetermined distance.
• Dispersal: fiery bits rush out from the explosion potentially setting inflammables alight.
• Character: based on the essence of fire, it takes more than mere water to douse.
A Levitation Amulet:
• Initiation: concentration, willpower to activate/maintain. Works on wearer only.
• Carrier/Medium: magic passes through contact and affects wearer regardless of their relative motion.
• Effect: flight.
• Dispersal: leaves a short train of sparkles.
• Character: Wearer's force of will enacted as motion. Weak will limits speed/lifting capacity (beyond wearer's body).
Loa Rider Curse
• Initiation: being ridden by a loa first, then it's whatever they want to do.
• Carrier/Medium: verbal, sometimes anyone who can hear it.
• Effect: victim acquires a disadvantage whether supernatural or physical.
• Dispersal: to the distance it can be heard or lasts until broken.
• Character: fickle in the fashion of verbal statements.
Our system allows a wide variety of effects and schedules of abilities for their practitioners. This is the main reason for the 'how it turns out' measurements. The remainder is dealt with by a description of the limitations of situations, effects, targets, or practitioners.
As for the idea proposed, what's the simplest way you can tell yours aren't superpowers like in comic books? What you've given so far matches up pretty well; I'm curious what your take is to give them more character than just magical superpowers.
Hope that helps.
Fang Langford
On 9/21/2002 at 4:09am, kaworuiskool wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
Hm. I'm gonna try and not drift the topic to my own idea here, but to respond to your comic book comparison, I'm going for magic ability being rare at first, then spreading quickly in the elf genepool. Actually, I'd have to go completely off topic to explain how those elves work. Those interested can check my page in my sig, click on the secunda section. I'll put up more than that bare explanation soon.
On 9/22/2002 at 4:42am, M. J. Young wrote:
The Multiverser system
Magic is controlled and empowered by expectation; ritual focuses expectation. Thus the design of a spell is a balancing of ritual against power--the more a character has to put into the spell, the more he will be able to get out.
On that basis, players can design just about any kind of ritual they want to produce any effects they can imagine. Making the ritual "appropriate" to the effect is a bonus; destroying valuable objects is a bonus; extending the time it takes to do is a bonus. Conversely, boosting the power, the range, the area, the duration, and such are all penalties. In the end, you've got a bit of magic with a fixed probability that it will work when used.
--M. J. Young
On 9/23/2002 at 10:16am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
Unsurprsingly see, I tend to see "magic" in the light of the moral structure of the universe. It's function as Metaphysics is to me much more important than its effectiveness in player terms. Hence, my designes would start from the principle that magic should reinforce the culural mores of the society under discussion.
On 9/23/2002 at 11:09am, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
contracycle wrote: Unsurprsingly see, I tend to see "magic" in the light of the moral structure of the universe. It's function as Metaphysics is to me much more important than its effectiveness in player terms.
This is very close to my own feelings about magic.
I have very little interest in pseudo-physics explanations of magic, as though magic were 'physics plus'. To my mind, an explanation of how magic works in the world is missing the point. To me, a magical explanation of the world is not additive to, or cumulative with a physical explanation, but alternative to it. Magic is more than a specific phenomenon, but is an explanation for all phenomena. It was the universal science before modern science itself even existed.
contracycle wrote: Hence, my designes would start from the principle that magic should reinforce the culural mores of the society under discussion.
To the societies that believe in an practice magic, there is no distinction between the nature of culture and the natiure of the world. Culture is a mirror for their view of how and why the natural order functions (or vice-versa to be relativist about it for a moment).
For example, it's almost impossible to discuss real-world magical systems without also discussing religion. They are inextricably linked. In fact I would say that while metaphysics is theoretical, magic is in fact applied religion.
Simon Hibbs
On 9/23/2002 at 10:14pm, kaworuiskool wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
Hm, perhaps this was a bad idea. I tend to see quite a few opinions of the sort 'if it's explainable, it's not magic', or something to that extent. I tend to say 'if it's not plausible, it doesn't exist'. You're right, it's intertwined with religion, and my background influences me on this. Nothing for it but to agree to disagree, just as long as it doesn't become a sticking point for anyone.
In closing I have to agree with you on one thing - magic and science are two different ways of approaching truth. We may not know everything but we all have different bits of something.
On 9/24/2002 at 8:57am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
I'm still confused as to what it was you wanted to actually discuss. I provided my answer on the basis that you wanted you know how we "start conceptualising magic". But, I'm not sure what the "agree to disagree" thing is about then.
On 9/24/2002 at 12:25pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Another magic thread
kaworuiskool wrote: Hm, perhaps this was a bad idea.
I don't see why.
I tend to see quite a few opinions of the sort 'if it's explainable, it's not magic',
Agreed, that's daft. Everyone I've talked to who believs in practical magic also believes it's explainable, at least at a general level.
or something to that extent. I tend to say 'if it's not plausible, it doesn't exist'. You're right, it's intertwined with religion, and my background influences me on this. Nothing for it but to agree to disagree, just as long as it doesn't become a sticking point for anyone.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not trying to argue with you, just explain what I think about magic, both hypothetical and historical, and why.
In closing I have to agree with you on one thing - magic and science are two different ways of approaching truth. We may not know everything but we all have different bits of something.
Quite. I don't think 'true' or 'untrue' are very usefull tests for any description of the universe or how it works. The history of science shows us this (Is Newtonian physics true or untrue? How would Newton have responded to that question? Are things realy all that different now?), and unknowability is built into the mystical/metaphysical view of the world. I prefer to talk about whether a theory or philosophy is usefull. Many people find religion/magic to be very usefull to them, and in most fantasy worlds/games it's clearly usefull.
I have a feeling I'm hijacking this thread to talk about things I like talking about, but I'm afraid I have only a vague sense of what you were asking in the first place.
Simon Hibbs