PDA

View Full Version : Discussing Magic Systems



Segev
2013-10-17, 05:40 PM
A little before this point (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16237070#post16237070) in the "Races, Races" thread, discussions of magic systems arose, and shortly after the linked point is a concern that this is getting too far off topic. But I found the subject interesting, so am opening it up here, a bit.

One of the key points is how magic differs from technology...or doesn't.

More on that later, though, as I just got interrupted and ran out of time. Still, let's continue this discussion here!

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-17, 06:31 PM
Remember the phrase: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."?

The opposite also applies: "Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology." (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)

This results in warforged, spelljammer and so much more.

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-10-17, 06:59 PM
Remember the phrase: "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."?

The opposite also applies: "Sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from technology." (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205)

This results in warforged, spelljammer and so much more.

Only if the magic system is based somewhat on rules. I prefer magic that's at least consistent, but plenty of people like the "fwoosh! you're a frog now" type.

Plus, you assume a setting where Magic and Technology aren't diametrically opposed forces.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-17, 07:23 PM
Well, they kinda are opposite forces already, science is the application of physics, magic is the application of the lack of physics. :smalltongue:

The Oni
2013-10-17, 07:56 PM
I prefer magic as the creative applications of physics through extranormal means.

JoshuaZ
2013-10-17, 08:08 PM
Plus, you assume a setting where Magic and Technology aren't diametrically opposed forces.

This may be common, but it isn't always clear what they mean when they have this. Is a spinning wheel technology? Is a rope technology? If not, why not? What they often seem to mean is things involving electricity, in which case why in those same settings can casters fire lightning bolts? Magic and Technology as opposing forces only makes sense if one doesn't think about it too much.

Grinner
2013-10-17, 08:21 PM
Magic should be internally consistent in any case. If there is no cause and effect, then you can't really say that anything has happened, magical or otherwise.

The difference between magic (defined as "any effect brought about without relying on physics") and technology isn't always clear. In fact, sometimes the dichotomy is entirely false. In truth, technology is just applied knowledge. If the knowledge happens to be magical, so be it.

One of the key elements of technology is that it is easily reproduced, transferred, and operated. Certain examples of magic lend themselves better to this image than others. Generic D&D, for example, tends to inspire thoughts of lightweight Decanter of Endless Water-powered steam engines, simply because such effects can be bound into objects and sold easily. It's ill-defined metaphysics and easy magic make magitech only easier.

In other examples, magic tends to be far more personal, discouraging the development of magitech. Take Unknown Armies, for example. There, magic is a function of each adept's own unique perspective*; no two sorcerers are truly alike. More than that, it demands more than a handful of bat poop to work; it demands everything they have. Magic is not just something they do in their free time. It pervades their every thought. They don't practice magic; they are magic.

It's ultimately a question of the magic system in question. The ones that scream magic the most will be the ones that tie into the setting deeply, function on a different sort of logic than science, and are closely bonded to the characters, body and soul.

*There's actually multiple forms of magic. This one focuses on the power of paradoxes and obsession. The other kind happens to be the basis of the karmic reincarnation of the universe.

Fun times.

oudeis
2013-10-17, 09:46 PM
For me, Eberron is the preeminent example of Magitek done right and probably one of the top three gameworlds I've seen. As much I like it, though, I think it makes some fundamental mistakes translating our deterministic technological reality to a fantasy universe.

In our world, it doesn't matter how smart or how educated you are, that knowledge doesn't translate directly to power. Nikola Tesla's work on electricity laid the basis for much of the modern world but he couldn't personally throw lightning bolts. No matter how gifted you are intellectually you are still bound by the limitations of human biology. Additionally, once you make your discoveries public they are going to become part of the public domain. Unless your work results in discrete, patentable technology the only reward you're going to get is academic tenure and perhaps an award. Add to this that whatever you discover or create will likely require an extensive industrial and technological infrastructure to realize, requiring money, a labor force, raw materials, and physical space at the very least. Even if you own the patent on your work you will still need all of the above, so the rewards get dissipated into society as a whole. Once that discovery has made its way into the canon of available knowledge it becomes available to any and all. A diligent if not especially gifted student can utilize physical laws to make electrical equipment that will work every bit as well as devices constructed by a genius.

In a fantasy world, however, knowledge literally is power, at least for wizards. Your studies into the working of the cosmos give you the ability wield the elements and forces that comprise and drive it. If you had that power, if you could literally create things with your mind, would you be willing to share it with others? Would Bigby really share the secrets of his various Hands with those who might turn around and use them against him, or even just in competition with him or his interests? I'm deeply cynical about human nature so my answer is a resounding NO. You'd keep that knowledge and the power it gives to yourself. You might share it with others in your family or clan but that's likely as far you'd go.You'd train or hire those you thought could help you in your work but you wouldn't teach them any more than they needed to know to serve you. Why? Chicks Power. Power and the Money. Money and the Power. Minute after minute. Hour after hour. In the absence of compelling self-interest or the compulsion of external forces, whether impersonal and mechanical or personal and targeted, that knowledge would stay with you and yours.

Unlike the American high-schools of my youth and John Hughes movies the jocks would not bully the nerds in this world into giving up their homework. The big buff dude who can hit hard and attack rapidly is going to be no match for the skinny little twerp who can fling lightning and fire. The result would be a grim magocracy, an oligarchy where the path to prosperity for mundanes would lie through finding a powerful Wizorcer and pledging fealty to him. The ungifted would serve but never join the aristocracy since they would literally lack the talent to move up. Select warriors- i.e., those smart enough to keep their mouths shut and their swords sheathed- might be given magical trinkets to make them more capable servants but the supply of +N swords and enchanted armor is going to extremely small and tightly controlled. Loyal/brainwashed elite troops would be better equipped, perhaps even with Rods of Magic Missile or something else equivalent to a modern assault rifle but you can be damned sure these devices will be enchanted so as to be useless against their creator or at least easily disabled.

Eberron by contrast has much more optimistic feel to it. The Last War was terrible but it was ended and the world is wide-open for people to make their own way in it. The noble houses monopolize certain magitek industries but there are plenty of opportunities for advancement within them for fighters and thieves. Entrepreneurial artificers can still strike it rich on their own. The whole world has a distinctly middle-class vibe to it, in contrast to the rigid caste system I think would evolve.

I've left out a lot in this post, like how divine magic would impact the world or the lyrics to 'Wizzas Paradise' that I alluded to above. Simply put, I have a lot of problems with the way divine magic is incorporated into most gameworlds. That is a topic in and of itself, and needs its own thread or at least a dedicated post. I have different problems with the mechanics of arcane magic, though equally as strong. My interpretations of both are closely entwined with a game world/variant system that I've been cogitating on for some time, so I'll hold off on throwing these into the discussion unless the people here have an interest in hearing them. For now, I've depleted my brain and need to eat.

hiryuu
2013-10-17, 09:59 PM
If that's how magic works.

In the setting I usually run, everything anyone does is the result of complex interactions with the universe and binding agreements therein; someone picking up a pencil with their hand is "casting a spell," in which their own personal interference is mutually agreed upon by themselves and the pencil. What the setting calls "magicians" are people who have earned enough kharmic respect to skip steps. There are also free-floating memes - while a pencil is, in and of itself, the impression of the idea "pencil" into wood and graphite, there is the unimpressed idea out there somewhere, and if you can find it and talk to it, it's likely you could weasel it into getting you a pencil just about anywhere with enough logic or promise of favors.

In that case, knowledge isn't so much important as it is respect or fear of the universe in regards to how awesome it thinks you are or how you've done for it lately.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-17, 10:05 PM
Well, there is one instance where a magic system can be distinct, and that's when it works on the principles of metaphysics rather than physics. Things like the concept of "sympathy" (having a lock of someone's hair lets you affect them), "contamination" (a magical curse can affect other people who hear the cursed person talk), or "affinity" (ingesting mercury makes you slippery, evasive, and untouchable).

In that instance, there's also a lot of ritual to it. The rules don't center around the physical properties of things, but rather the symbology and meaning behind the physical properties of them.

tasw
2013-10-17, 10:22 PM
well since the OP didnt specify D&D I'd say theres 2 ways magic and technology are different.

1. Anyone can use technology. If you can pull the trigger of a loaded gun it will shoot, if you turn the key on a car and push the gas pedal the car moves forward whether you know what your doing or not.

Magic on the other hand is not usable by anyone. Not just anyone can pick up a wand, say the command word and get it to work, or pick up a spell book, read off the words and cast a spell.


And the other way is that technology can be replicated. If you have the right materials and equipment you can build the same Model T as the original, you can go online and pick up the instructions to put a new computer together, follow the instructions and get the same result as an expert would with those directions in most cases.

Magic in many settings is very personal though. Its an expression of the casters inner soul and energy and differs greatly from caster to caster.

Also 2 casters of different levels casting the same spells will often get drastically different results (damage and saves scaling by level for instance).

JoshuaZ
2013-10-17, 10:34 PM
Well, there is one instance where a magic system can be distinct, and that's when it works on the principles of metaphysics rather than physics. Things like the concept of "sympathy" (having a lock of someone's hair lets you affect them), "contamination" (a magical curse can affect other people who hear the cursed person talk), or "affinity" (ingesting mercury makes you slippery, evasive, and untouchable).

In that instance, there's also a lot of ritual to it. The rules don't center around the physical properties of things, but rather the symbology and meaning behind the physical properties of them.

But that's only called something like metaphysics because it turned out in the real world that the laws of physics didn't work that way. If it had turned out that they did work that way, we'd call it physics.

Slipperychicken
2013-10-17, 11:00 PM
I prefer magic to be poorly understood (if at all), but still internally consistent, even if the precise rules aren't known. Practicing magic is more art than science, which depends highly on an individual's tacit understanding of magical forces, which is inherently difficult to verbalize or codify. As a result, theorists speculate wildly about the nature of magic. It should also be dangerous to use, with almost all magic-users liable to hurt themselves in one way or another. Attempts to use stronger magics are subject to increased chance of catastrophic failure. Magic is much less costly than technology in terms of material wealth, and can achieve spectacular effects in exchange for uncertainty and backlash.


"Technology", while it certainly fails at times, is far more reliable than magic. It is also based on codified natural laws. Tech usually offers the "low risk, low reward" alternative to magic, cannot achieve the diversity or potency of effects which magic can, and costs more resources to use. However, tech typically requires less skill to use.

TuggyNE
2013-10-17, 11:03 PM
well since the OP didnt specify D&D I'd say theres 2 ways magic and technology are different.

1. Anyone can use technology. If you can pull the trigger of a loaded gun it will shoot, if you turn the key on a car and push the gas pedal the car moves forward whether you know what your doing or not.

Magic on the other hand is not usable by anyone. Not just anyone can pick up a wand, say the command word and get it to work, or pick up a spell book, read off the words and cast a spell.

In counterpoint, anyone can use a magic sword or winged boots in most systems (assuming such exist), while not many people have the talent needed to properly use C++ templating to produce good code or sift through a 100 MiB dump file to rapidly determine the cause of a crash.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-17, 11:17 PM
But that's only called something like metaphysics because it turned out in the real world that the laws of physics didn't work that way. If it had turned out that they did work that way, we'd call it physics.
Not exactly. In that event, the term would be "aphysics", not "metaphysics". :smallwink:

What I'm talking about is when metaphysical ideas have literal, physical impact. When they cross barriers from one type of reality to the other.

tasw
2013-10-17, 11:19 PM
In counterpoint, anyone can use a magic sword or winged boots in most systems (assuming such exist), while not many people have the talent needed to properly use C++ templating to produce good code or sift through a 100 MiB dump file to rapidly determine the cause of a crash.

Ahh thats the thing though, they dont exist everywhere. And even in D&D you have things like weapons of legacy that grow and change depending on the user and experiences of the the weapon. Or items that only work for certain classes like some magical instruments, wands, staves, etc.

Although as other posters have said this to me is more a problem of not having internal consistency in the laws of magic within some settings.

The C++ example i would say is more magic/skill then magic/technology. Sort of like the difference between someone using skill points to learn lots of languages and someone using comprehend languages to talk with anyone.

JoshuaZ
2013-10-17, 11:26 PM
Not exactly. In that event, the term would be "aphysics", not "metaphysics". :smallwink:

What I'm talking about is when metaphysical ideas have literal, physical impact. When they cross barriers from one type of reality to the other.

Right, but the reason why you consider those to be meaningful different types of reality is because you reside in a reality where apparently they aren't integrated.

TuggyNE
2013-10-17, 11:29 PM
Ahh thats the thing though, they dont exist everywhere. And even in D&D you have things like weapons of legacy that grow and change depending on the user and experiences of the the weapon. Or items that only work for certain classes like some magical instruments, wands, staves, etc.

Of course. My point was merely that it's not that magic can't make stuff that works for everyone: most of the time, it's perfectly capable of it. Instead, it often doesn't bother to do so. And similarly, technology, while often known for making things accessible to all, doesn't always manage that by any stretch of the imagination.


The C++ example i would say is more magic/skill then magic/technology. Sort of like the difference between someone using skill points to learn lots of languages and someone using comprehend languages to talk with anyone.

... what? So, I'm magic because I can understand pointer arithmetic and function composition? (Note, for background, that a sizable proportion of those attempting to learn programming prove entirely incapable of understanding certain more sophisticated concepts of computer science. They just do not have, as it were, the Int score to hold them in mind.)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't seem to make sense. :smallconfused:

tasw
2013-10-17, 11:37 PM
... what? So, I'm magic because I can understand pointer arithmetic and function composition? (Note, for background, that a sizable proportion of those attempting to learn programming prove entirely incapable of understanding certain more sophisticated concepts of computer science. They just do not have, as it were, the Int score to hold them in mind.)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't seem to make sense. :smallconfused:

I was saying its not a good analogy because using C++ isnt an example of technology so much as skill. And magic doesnt (or shouldnt) be in competition with skill.

I took this thread to be more about magic competing with technology. And as you said programming is more math and function composition skills with the technology aspect simply being what those are being applied to rather then something inherently necessary.

TuggyNE
2013-10-18, 12:13 AM
I was saying its not a good analogy because using C++ isnt an example of technology so much as skill. And magic doesnt (or shouldnt) be in competition with skill.

I took this thread to be more about magic competing with technology. And as you said programming is more math and function composition skills with the technology aspect simply being what those are being applied to rather then something inherently necessary.

A fair number of systems (D&D certainly included, but not limited to that by any means) have the idea of a Wizard or other studied magic user: one who does not have an inborn talent for magic specifically, but who merely has the mental wherewithal to understand the complex formulas and principles of magic.

Similarly, a good computer programmer does not have an inborn talent for "technology" (whatever that means — car whisperer? low-level telepathic communication with washing machines?), but does have the mental wherewithal to understand the complex formulas and principles of technology, specifically of their specialization or specializations, which would include programming languages and other such tools.

And if you don't think computer science is technology, then what on earth or out of it would be?

Arbane
2013-10-18, 01:21 AM
One of D&D's conceits is the "Anti-Magic Field" - something that just cancels out magic effects in its area. Is some settings, like Exalted, this would make less sense than an Anti-Physics Field. (Exalted has consistent laws of physics.... because the gods who administer natural phenomena still obey some of the rules their fallen Primordial masters set down for them...as long as nobody can offer up a big enough bribe for them to make an exception. )

....Come to think of it, Exalted has Anti-Physics Fields. They're called Wyld Zones, and they're places where reality has collapsed back into the churning chaos that surrounds Creation on all sides.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-18, 01:53 AM
Ahh thats the thing though, they dont exist everywhere. And even in D&D you have things like weapons of legacy that grow and change depending on the user and experiences of the the weapon.

Well as long as we're on magic working analagously with computers: Lets say magic links directly with people's minds, considering charisma powers sorcery its not unreasonable. Artifacts changing would be like a computer going through a series of owners, one wants to do graphical design and modifies the computer for that, another is a gamer and modifies the computer for that. ect. The owners' abilities change the artifact by modifying its "software"

Why am I attempting to logically justify a substitute for physics? Isn't there something less insane for me to do right now?

tasw
2013-10-18, 03:50 AM
A fair number of systems (D&D certainly included, but not limited to that by any means) have the idea of a Wizard or other studied magic user: one who does not have an inborn talent for magic specifically, but who merely has the mental wherewithal to understand the complex formulas and principles of magic.

Similarly, a good computer programmer does not have an inborn talent for "technology" (whatever that means — car whisperer? low-level telepathic communication with washing machines?), but does have the mental wherewithal to understand the complex formulas and principles of technology, specifically of their specialization or specializations, which would include programming languages and other such tools.

And if you don't think computer science is technology, then what on earth or out of it would be?

that definition of magic users sucks. And in the whole breadth of fantasy fiction seems to be the minority. Most fantasy has magic as in born talent you work to get better at. Not something anyone can do.

Your programmer has in born talent for math. Most people dont no matter how hard they are taught.

That same programmer could apply those math and applied logic skills to any number of problems outside of programming.

Which is why its a SKILL and not a TECHNOLOGY issue. The technology is simply the direction that user chooses to apply his skill in. The skill itself is not dependent on the technology and sans said technology would simply be applied elsewhere, just like it was before programming existed.

Black Jester
2013-10-18, 04:43 AM
I personally find any magic concept that is fiully understandable and predictable by humans inherently dull and unconvincing. Magic should be, by its very nature uncontrolable and volatile, and any try to actually understand or control it is bound to fail. Likewise, magic should always always bear a significant risk for those who wield it. If there is no risk involved, magic is mostly boring. However, despite its volatile nature, any good depiction of magic is, like any decent representation in an RPG internally consistent. Using the phrase "a wizard did it" as a general excuse is nothing but bad and lazy writing and should be avoided. The issue is not that a wizard did it; you need to answer the much more relevant question why and how he did it.

Omegonthesane
2013-10-18, 05:14 AM
Only big example of defining the divide comes from Sluggy Freelance, where science and technology work within the laws set by the gods, while the use of magic breaks these laws. It also weakens the Web of Fate, making it that tiny bit easier for Kozoaku to escape and destroy the world.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 08:17 AM
In context of reality, magic is an illusion - it is the feel of a thing, irregardless of how that thing comes into existence. Magical thinking is an intuitive pitfall, a flaw of human thought. It is caused by disconnect between perceivable cause and effect - that is, it is triggered when a human can see a cause and an effect, but how one leads to another is invisible or unfathomable, leading to feeling of mystery and wonderment.

Once you explain the phenomenom, in terms of physics or whatever, the magic goes away. It happens, because the magic never was part of the actual phenomenom - it was all in the head of the observer. This is why there are so many people who dislike giving rules to magic - once an explanation is understood, the feeling is dead, and instead of magic you have alternate physics. Instead of fantasy and mystery, you have science fiction.

In context of fantasy, magic is a buzzword. Magic means invocation of the supernatural, but what supernatural is or includes varies from setting to setting and author to author. Two settings that base their magic systems on contradictory premises are incomparable. They are not part of the same order of events at all. Because of this, arguments based on what magic "should do", or that magic "can do everything", are entirely absurd. Magic only does what author of a setting decides it can do, and magic only justifies what author of the setting decides it can justify. Period.

In the context of D&D Wizards, magic is technology, and Wizards are scientist and engineers of magic. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16237137&postcount=341) Period. There is nothing to discuss there unless you have very confused definitions of science and technology.

In case of other spellcasters, this isn't really so. Clerics don't usually gain their power from research and study, they gain it from revelation or are granted it from above. They are not scientists, they are, well, clerics. Same goes for any contract-based spellcaster. Their domain is that of spokepersons and politicians, not scientists.

Biology-based, inherited spellcasting (akin to sorcerers and monstrous creatures) is something of an odd duck out. The question really becomes: is there a non-magical way to learn about biology of these creatures? Are the functions that lead to their mysterious powers in any way visible and verifiable? If the answer is "yes", it is still possible to turn magic into a science, but it is not that of mechanics, it is that of breeding and biology.

Then we have belief-based spellcasting, like Planescape is if played completely straight. Here... it's not really possible to reliably deduce or conclude anything about the nature of the supernatural, as what the supernatural even is is based on your belief. Incompleteness theorem, non-determinism and the uncertainty principle are in full swing. Nothing can be known for certain, and logic is replaced by fanaticism. In these settings, magic is variably domain of philosophy, or just plain Calvinball with rules of creation. You can metagame magic with understanding of psychology, but if you are caught in your attempts, the rules of psychology change.

So, it's really a continuum. At one end, we have magic as hard science, then magic as black box technology, then as soft sciences or philosophy, and finally as a (dangerous and unpredictable) game.

I should note, though, that logically "Clap your hands if you believe" settings should immediately collapse to being ruled by a single creator entity. That's because the thought of "all opinions are equal" is a paradox - if all opinions are equal, then the opinion that all opinions are not equal is valid as well. If magic is based on such flimsy logic, the system implodes in seconds. The first creature to strongly believe "my beliefs are the only ones that matter" wins; next line in the book is "let there be light!"

JoshuaZ
2013-10-18, 08:59 AM
Frozen_Feet, that's a really good summary of what's going on.

I think in practice, a lot of people though (including myself) like some degree of ambiguity in how things work. In the 3.5/PF setting I currently am running a campaign in, a major reason that magic isn't just science is that the scientific method hasn't been discovered, and there's enough weird unpredictable stuff out there that no one has done a really good job of cataloging everything. Also I changed the fluff for wizards so that only some people can become wizards although if one has the basic talent it then works off of hard study and understanding. This has some other setting impact issues.

Omegonthesane
2013-10-18, 10:11 AM
Frozen_Feet, that's a really good summary of what's going on.

I think in practice, a lot of people though (including myself) like some degree of ambiguity in how things work. In the 3.5/PF setting I currently am running a campaign in, a major reason that magic isn't just science is that the scientific method hasn't been discovered, and there's enough weird unpredictable stuff out there that no one has done a really good job of cataloging everything. Also I changed the fluff for wizards so that only some people can become wizards although if one has the basic talent it then works off of hard study and understanding. This has some other setting impact issues.

That's sort of already the case - only people with Int 13 or more ever actually become Wizards, so it doesn't affect the setting much if you say only people with Int 13 or more are (meta)physically capable of becoming Wizards.

It's not how I'd do it, but I take issue with themes of explicitly winning the birth lottery (Yer a wizard, Harry!) and, more practically, feel it restricts backstory concepts pointlessly if there is an in-character way of telling heroes from scrubs before crunch time, so wouldn't include that in a setting I wrote.

JoshuaZ
2013-10-18, 10:20 AM
That's sort of already the case - only people with Int 13 or more ever actually become Wizards, so it doesn't affect the setting much if you say only people with Int 13 or more are (meta)physically capable of becoming Wizards.

It's not how I'd do it, but I take issue with themes of explicitly winning the birth lottery (Yer a wizard, Harry!) and, more practically, feel it restricts backstory concepts pointlessly if there is an in-character way of telling heroes from scrubs before crunch time, so wouldn't include that in a setting I wrote.

Well, in setting you can have Int 13 and still not have the ability to be a wizard. I wanted there to be smart people who didn't have magic. There's plot and other reasons for it also. For example, it allows one to have NPCs who have studied a lot of what is known about magic but don't have any of their own.


more practically, feel it restricts backstory concepts pointlessly if there is an in-character way of telling heroes from scrubs before crunch time, so wouldn't include that in a setting I wrote.

In this context, it is assumed more or less that if you want to be a spellcaster you'll turn out to have the right abilities. But I can see how the birth lottery thing would bother people.

Segev
2013-10-18, 11:02 AM
In my own head-canon, I tend to think of magic as anything that violates the laws of thermodynamics. This is a bit more stringent than one might think; even "The Name of the Wind's" magic system that uses sympathy and talks about not creating or destroying energy has conduits for energy transfer that are, themselves, violating entropy's laws of order-chaos transition.

Magic, generally speaking, creates energy out of nowhere (or occasionally obliterates it without a trace).


That, however, is only really useful in identifying if something is more likely "technology" or "magic." (Psychic powers are entirely magic as a general rule, unless one goes to extensive length to explain them. I have a couple of systems that would make them feasible and still scientific rather than magic-by-another name, but those can wait for another post.)


In D&D, I agree that one way to look at wizards is as "magic engineers" where "magic" is just a very alien science and technology in an alien world with different laws of physics (and likely a lack of laws of entropy as we know them).

However, one way I've reconciled to myself both the idea that "magic" should feel different from science and that mages should have personal power from their mastery of magic is to step back from it a bit and look at where the power and effect comes from in a fluff sense. The setting I've brought up a few times before (with the orcs whose sexes live vastly different cultural lives) is animistic to a certain degree. "Spirits" are everywhere. They're (semi)sentient forces that can self-direct, control aspects of the world, and source energy from within themselves with no apparent cause.

Wizards are not scientists. They're lawyers.

Ancient contracts with powerful beings that command the lesser spirits stipulate certain things which must be done to entitle the doer to service from the spirits that answer to the one with whom the contract was formed. Wizards dig up these contracts and exploit them. They perform their sides of the bargain as they prepare their spells; the actual spellcasting later on is an invocation and specification of what they expect. Spellcasting thus retains that "in the name of..." and "I call upon..." with specific gestures used to identify and finalize the contratual obligations. Spirits are either very literal minded or very picky, because you have to get the components just right or they don't actually obey.

A lot of spell research is a sort-of science combined with rules lawyering: looking for loopholes and ways to twist ancient contracts to create new effects or demand new boons. Some is more involved: it actually requires seeking out the powers which dwell over the forces the researcher wants to manipulate and negotiating a NEW contract. Such spells are truly unique, because the language in them is entirely up to the researcher and the power with whom he negotiates the terms.

Higher-level wizards are able to find ways to prepare more spells by taking short-cuts that are technically valid, and which avoid pitfalls wherein a particular preparation violates the terms of a prior one. They also just plain have more frequent dealings with the Beings in question, and can thus get away with more due to knowing better what they can and cannot demand. Hence more potent magical effects.

Sorcerers, who get by on Charisma rather than Intelligence, go out and befriend the spirits themselves. Some have a number of "familiar spirits" (not to be confused with their actual familiar, if they have one...though conceivably their familiar may double as one) which they've befriended and have terms based more on their alliance than the specifics. Still, the forms must be observed, so they need to gesture and speak and provide the material components, but their spells come from a more personal connection, so they don't have to go and exploit the full preparation of the ancient contracts' clauses. Other Sorcerers have personally sought out and negotiated with the high-end powers, and performed a service once (or ongoing, by their quest and nature) that means they can cast the spell as often as they can get away with. The limits to their spells per day are based on fatiguing the patience of the beings they command and cajole.

Divine casters are so called because they literally have the blessing of either a god or (in the case of druids) an order which has long-standing agreements. They do not command based on legalism, but based on being granted official authority by the superiors of the beings they command by their spells. The less stringent gestures are part of this: a cleric commanding that his friend's wounds be healed or that his enemies be cursed acts with authority granted with the cooperation of the god at the top of the hierarchy. The god's servants hasten to obey, provided he merely proves his authority with the proper invocation. A little mistake or imprecision isn't enough to stop them, because they're not looking for excuses to ignore his technical, contract-given authority, nor is he relying on their good will as earned by the elegance of his gesticulations.


If you think about it, this makes wizards into lawyers, sorcerers into celebrities, and divine casters into nobility (or flunkies of the same). Lawyers, politicians, celebrities...these HAVE personal power. They speak, and the world moves to obey. This isn't something "just anybody" can do by mimicing their actions. While anybody can pick up a smart phone and make a call to reserve a hotel room, not just anybody can mention they want to stay in the penthouse suite of a fancy hotel and have it done on their behalf; only the well-connected can do that. While anybody can pull a trigger, not just anybody can order somebody else to kill a room full of people; only the gang boss can do that.

Being a spellcaster becomes all about "who you know," even if that's not obvious to the uninitiated. That lack of obviousness is due to the "who" being inhuman beings beyond the ken of most non-magic-users.

But it allows for all the tropes of wizardry and D&D-style magic without making it at all "technology." No more than use of laws and loopholes is "technology," anyway.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-18, 11:40 AM
Segev, I congratulate you on your understanding of contractual magic. To paraphrase another poster who got it: "I, Pelor the Burning hate, grant the signer of this treaty (=Segev) one (1) casting of Inflict Light Wounds spell in a daily cycle (24 hours)."

Segev
2013-10-18, 02:02 PM
Heh, thanks.

My main reason behind coming up with it and behind sharing it is to present a paradigm that holds to the tropes of magic-use that D&D attempts to evoke and steps away from the "magic as science" debate. I don't think too many people would argue that law is science.


As a bonus point, it paints Wizards as "rules lawyers," something that should be near and dear to most of our gamer hearts. ;)

Grinner
2013-10-18, 07:57 PM
Once you explain the phenomenom, in terms of physics or whatever, the magic goes away. It happens, because the magic never was part of the actual phenomenom - it was all in the head of the observer. This is why there are so many people who dislike giving rules to magic - once an explanation is understood, the feeling is dead, and instead of magic you have alternate physics. Instead of fantasy and mystery, you have science fiction.

I disagree. A magic system can be understood and still be magic, but to be so, I think any explanation should avoid mundanity at all costs. Part of my fascination with Unknown Armies comes from how novel the magics are. Part of the problem is that so many settings fail to really define what magic means. Wizards are just wizards. Nothing more, nothing less. They fail to be special, so their magic also fails to be special. Unknown Armies isn't like that; each school of magic forms a discrete, cohesive philosophy. The mystery is part of the magic in the magic, yes, but there's so much more.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 07:20 AM
Grinner: define mundane. What are the things that make magic system feel mundane to you?

I suspect your disagreement with you is because you belong to a subset of humanity who doesn't think magically. It's not mystery that draws your attention, but rather something else. Aspect of philosophy, perhaps?

Do you like science fiction?

Eulalios
2013-10-19, 08:31 AM
I've been kicking around the following concept for a long time ... something about the Giant's Tarquin character, plus Ron Edward's Sorceror rules, plus Once Upon a Time, plus the whole D&D Tier System ...


Magic, in essence, bends the rules of reality.

What's the simplest / most essential rule for that?

Let a spell cost mana for each rule that's bent - for each item or concept that a lay person would need, for which magic stands in. Then additional mana, as follows:

{table]Mana points | by target | by range | by duration
+0 | single object or creature | Touch[1] | instantaneous
+1 | number of objects or creatures < Caster level | Caster's sight | one round
+2 | number of objects or creatures < sqr(Caster level) | Caster's voice or hearing; sympathy[2] | Caster's focus
+3 | Caster's knowledge | Caster's knowledge | until sunset / sunrise / moonset / moonrise / other simple conditional
+4 | Caster's definition | Caster's definition | complex conditional[/table]
[1]including with a stick or wand or sword or whatever
[2]by portrait, hair, nails, blood, spit, clothing, whatever ...

Let the spell level = mana cost - 1.

For casting, normally accomplished in d6 rounds, the following modifiers are applied to roll:
-1 for each spell level in excess of caster level; for casting in less than one round; for each variation from a known spell (e.g. change of target, range, duration, additional rule bent).
+1 for each spell level less than caster level; for unlimited time to cast; for having studied the exact spell since last awakening.

examples
Rule is: A first level Fighter needs a weapon, and a successful 5MORE (Defense with Weapon), to fend off each attack in one round while attacking one target.

A first level Mage needs three points of mana, and a successful 5MORE (Casting; or Specific Researched Spell:Mageblade), to bend that rule.
1 point of mana to make the spell last one round at touch range.
1 point of mana in place of the weapon.
1 point of mana in place of the Fighter's skill.

Three points of mana make this a 2d level spell (one level higher than Caster's level), so the 5MORE will be made at -1.
For a fourth point of mana, the spell will be 3d level, and can last so long as the Mage can concentrate; but the 5MORE will be made at -2.

A first level Skillsguy needs a flint, and steel, and tinder, and kindling, and wood, and a successful 5MORE (building a fire) to get a bonfire going.

A first level Mage needs seven points of mana, and a successful 5MORE (Casting; or SRS:Conflagration) to start a bonfire in an arbitrary mass of flammable stuff.
1 point of mana to make the spell last one round at touch* range.
6 points of mana in place of the flint, steel, tinder, kindling, wood, and skill.
If the Mage knew Conflagration, they would need to make 5MORE at -5 (in order to cast that 6th level spell). If the Mage knew only the first level Spark spell (replacing 2 points mana for instantaneous effect, at touch range, of absent flint and steel; still requiring a 5MORE for the actual skill of building a fire), then a roll to cast Conflagration would be made at -9 (modifying Spark to omit the tinder, kindling, wood, and skill; and binding 7 points of mana at first level). If Conflagration was cast at sight range, it would be a 7th level spell (-6 to 5MORE): barely castable, if the 1st level Mage was an EXPERT of Conflagration.

For casting, a 5MORE success means that the caster weaves all the required mana into the intended spell, failure means the caster burns a single mana to discover that circumstances do not support the weave, and a failure of ALL DICE 1 or less promotes a risk of Calamity. In case of a calamitous cast, the Caster loses all the mana meant for the spell, and, ....

=== Mana gathering

At sunrise, or at moonrise*, in any location where characters are, roll (1+Caster level)(d6-mod**) per character. Any conscious Caster may then gather mana from that pool. Highest Caster level takes first die, next Caster level takes next die, etc., repeat until each caster has drawn one die per Caster level.

*This will be near dawn, in a new moon; near sunset, in a full moon. Thus, Casters are most powerful in the full moon, when they easily can access double mana.
**the mod will depend on location. In a "mid-magic" setting, a very few locations will have mod 0; some will have mod 1; many will have mod 2; most, mod 3; a few, mod 5. Lower mods imply greater risk of supernal effects or creatures.

Jay R
2013-10-19, 10:15 AM
We're acting like we need to set the definition. We don't. "Magic" and "technology" are part of our culture.

For purposes of any game I run, "magic" is anything traditionally called "magic" in the real world or its literature, and "technology" is anything traditionally called "technology" in the real world or its literature.

DMwithoutPC's
2013-10-19, 11:07 AM
Segev, I love your defenition of magic.

Have yout thought about some of the more exotic spellcasters? I could imagine some of them, but I wonder what your opinion is. my guesses are:
Binder: well, this is pretty self explenatory. a daily contract with an alien spirit
shadowcaster: make constracts with shadowspirits?
Archivists: Divini lawyers. Like wizards, but in service of a faith
Spellthief: ??
Favoured Soul: Divine politicians?
Warlock: ??

and what do you do with Tome of Battle stuff?

Jay R
2013-10-19, 11:12 AM
But that's only called something like metaphysics because it turned out in the real world that the laws of physics didn't work that way. If it had turned out that they did work that way, we'd call it physics.

In fact, it merely means where the book was put. A bunch of Aristotle's essays were anthologized into a single book. The book was called Metaphysics only because it was next to Aristotle's Physics on the bookshelf.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-19, 11:19 AM
I have a liking for (though I've never played) Ars Magica's verb noun system. Yes, it means a lot improvisation and discussion to make sure everyone is clear on what the spell does, but I like the 'clicky' feeling. What I mean is, that feeling when you look at a bunch of tools that, on their own, are useless, but if you put this and this together . . .Ah ha! Suddenly, it clicks, you have a solution that you made yourself.
It's a wonderful feeling that.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 11:21 AM
Warlock is a fairly standard contract-based caster. Their magic is the spiritual equivalent of a highschool student giving blowjobs to their teacher in the back alley to get some underhanded benefits.

Spellthief is a spiritual contract thief and forgerer. They steal the contracts made by others, then fake their signature on the line. Or just fake the documents alltogether.

Shadowcasters make contracts with imaginary spirits. Imaginary, as in the sense of imaginary numbers, like square root of -1. Or possibly, they make contracts with platonic ideals.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-19, 11:51 AM
Shadowcasters make contracts with imaginary spirits. Imaginary, as in the sense of imaginary numbers, like square root of -1. Or possibly, they make contracts with platonic ideals.
I had an idea for a magic system [probably for a story rather than a game] where mancical magic consisted of making contracts with spirit/daemon/fetish associated with the various platonic ideals. It tended to be slower but more 'efficient' if you had time, as you were not effecting the change yourself, but coercing/negotiating/begging the spirit/daemon/fetish to do the work for you.

Grinner
2013-10-19, 12:07 PM
Grinner: define mundane. What are the things that make magic system feel mundane to you?

I suspect your disagreement with you is because you belong to a subset of humanity who doesn't think magically. It's not mystery that draws your attention, but rather something else. Aspect of philosophy, perhaps?

Things become mundane when people try to frame them in terms of the cliche. They become mundane when they mean nothing and do nothing by themselves. Everything serves a purpose, so what is the purpose of magic in the context of a game? A medieval analogue for artillery?

As for mystery, well that's a tricky subject. Mysteries are fun, but they're only fun if you're solving them. There needs to be a reason for them to be solved and a way to solve them.

And that's sort of what I've been getting at. Once you solve the mystery, where's the fun? If you're not solving the mystery, how is it fun? Most importantly, does the answer have all the pedantry of a physics textbook, or does it say something bigger? Was the journey worth it?


Do you like science fiction?

Not for the sake of science fiction in and of itself.

What I like is originality, novelty. I like things which tickle the senses and delight the imagination. I hate to see the same thing rehashed over and over, verbatim or nearly so.


We're acting like we need to set the definition. We don't. "Magic" and "technology" are part of our culture.

For purposes of any game I run, "magic" is anything traditionally called "magic" in the real world or its literature, and "technology" is anything traditionally called "technology" in the real world or its literature.

The divide isn't always that clear, though. What we call magic used to be tied up into science and religion. Now it's been largely cut away and left to dangle on what few tethers remain.

In it's place, mankind's inventions have taken root. Sure, the image, men in hooded robes mumbling, remains, but it lacks the authenticity, the je ne sais quoi. It's a fixture in the universe that serves no other purpose than to be mastered and exploited by the hands of men.

endoperez
2013-10-19, 01:31 PM
Magic, in essence, bends the rules of reality.

What's the simplest / most essential rule for that?

Let a spell cost mana for each rule that's bent - for each item or concept that a lay person would need, for which magic stands in. Then additional mana, as follows:

{table]Mana points | by target | by range | by duration
+0 | single object or creature | Touch[1] | instantaneous
+1 | number of objects or creatures < Caster level | Caster's sight | one round
+2 | number of objects or creatures < sqr(Caster level) | Caster's voice or hearing; sympathy[2] | Caster's focus
+3 | Caster's knowledge | Caster's knowledge | until sunset / sunrise / moonset / moonrise / other simple conditional
+4 | Caster's definition | Caster's definition | complex conditional[/table]
[1]including with a stick or wand or sword or whatever
[2]by portrait, hair, nails, blood, spit, clothing, whatever ...



:O
That's extremely close to Ars Magica.

{table]Magnitude | Target | Range | Duration
+0 | Individual person/object | Personal | Momentary
+1 | Part of a whole | Touch | 2 minutes or Concentration
+2 | Group (up to 10 individuals) | magus's Voice | Sun (next sundown or sunset)
+3 | anything withing a Structure, or a large group | magus's Sight | Moon (until next moonset AND moonrise)
+4 | Boundary (= inside e.g. the edge of a forest)| Sympathy (called Arcane Connection) | Year, requires a complex ritual [/table]

The system is very different from D&D, but if you want to mine it for ideas you can get a free e-book of the 4th edition somewhere.

It has one some cool things you missed in your list: it has Magic circle as a Target (+0, like Individual) and Duration (+2, like Sun). These spells affect everyone inside the circle at the time of casting, and/or last as long as the target doesn't leave the circle and the circle isn't broken.
Oh, a range of Eye is also cool - +1, like Touch, and you have to look the target in the eyes.

This sort of system is nice for making custom spells. Perhaps a fire mage can have a spell with the duration of Fire (as long as a natural fire burns), the BBEG might know how to target of Bloodline (for all your Familicide needs), and a more mundane magician might know how to cast a spell with a duration of a Bargain - the spell activates if the bargain is question is broken.

Eulalios
2013-10-19, 01:53 PM
@endoperez

Lol, oth I have a copy of Ars Magica 4e, and like it, but just totally spaced on the fact that I was subconsciously reproducing that table from there.

endoperez
2013-10-19, 02:06 PM
@endoperez

Lol, oth I have a copy of Ars Magica 4e, and like it, but just totally spaced on the fact that I was subconsciously reproducing that table from there.

Haha, that makes sense. Your system is quite cool too, I might use the "change one feature of a spell you already know" rule as a homerule in Ars Magica.

Jay R
2013-10-19, 04:31 PM
We're acting like we need to set the definition. We don't. "Magic" and "technology" are part of our culture.

For purposes of any game I run, "magic" is anything traditionally called "magic" in the real world or its literature, and "technology" is anything traditionally called "technology" in the real world or its literature.

The divide isn't always that clear, though. What we call magic used to be tied up into science and religion. Now it's been largely cut away and left to dangle on what few tethers remain.

But it has been clear in every game I've played.

In a theoretical vein, I can imagine a medieval game in which alchemy is magic, and a different one in which it was technology. In either game, however, it would be clear. (Unless the point of the game was to leave the question unanswered - in which case it wouldn't matter.)

Grinner
2013-10-19, 04:51 PM
But it has been clear in every game I've played.

In a theoretical vein, I can imagine a medieval game in which alchemy is magic, and a different one in which it was technology. In either game, however, it would be clear. (Unless the point of the game was to leave the question unanswered - in which case it wouldn't matter.)

What really bothers me is that magic is so often supposed to be this grand and mysterious thing, but it's treated so flippantly in the rules and consequently by the players.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive on the matter, but I have trouble caring for things which the writers themselves never put much thought into.

Rakaydos
2013-10-19, 05:30 PM
The Two higher beings are Phys, God of Complexity and Order, and Mag, god of Simplicity and Chaos. Long ago, Phys sealed away Mag and imposed an intricate, complex Order on the world, the Order of the Phys-ic. But Mag, seeking escape from his prison, offers Mag-ic, honoring contracts to break the natural Order of the world by exploiting a loophole in Phys's binding.

Life was one of Mag's creations- Entropy applied to entropy, energy coveverted to the most disordered state by the most complex and disordered means possible. (seriously, how do you get from quantum mechanics to TAX LAW?)

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 05:36 PM
Random chance. Einstein was obviously wrong, God does play dice, and specifically old-school D&D with random generation tables.

Thrudd
2013-10-20, 02:15 AM
I've been kicking around the following concept for a long time ... something about the Giant's Tarquin character, plus Ron Edward's Sorceror rules, plus Once Upon a Time, plus the whole D&D Tier System ...


Magic, in essence, bends the rules of reality.

What's the simplest / most essential rule for that?

Let a spell cost mana for each rule that's bent - for each item or concept that a lay person would need, for which magic stands in. Then additional mana, as follows:

{table]Mana points | by target | by range | by duration
+0 | single object or creature | Touch[1] | instantaneous
+1 | number of objects or creatures < Caster level | Caster's sight | one round
+2 | number of objects or creatures < sqr(Caster level) | Caster's voice or hearing; sympathy[2] | Caster's focus
+3 | Caster's knowledge | Caster's knowledge | until sunset / sunrise / moonset / moonrise / other simple conditional
+4 | Caster's definition | Caster's definition | complex conditional[/table]
[1]including with a stick or wand or sword or whatever
[2]by portrait, hair, nails, blood, spit, clothing, whatever ...

Let the spell level = mana cost - 1.

For casting, normally accomplished in d6 rounds, the following modifiers are applied to roll:
-1 for each spell level in excess of caster level; for casting in less than one round; for each variation from a known spell (e.g. change of target, range, duration, additional rule bent).
+1 for each spell level less than caster level; for unlimited time to cast; for having studied the exact spell since last awakening.

examples
Rule is: A first level Fighter needs a weapon, and a successful 5MORE (Defense with Weapon), to fend off each attack in one round while attacking one target.

A first level Mage needs three points of mana, and a successful 5MORE (Casting; or Specific Researched Spell:Mageblade), to bend that rule.
1 point of mana to make the spell last one round at touch range.
1 point of mana in place of the weapon.
1 point of mana in place of the Fighter's skill.

Three points of mana make this a 2d level spell (one level higher than Caster's level), so the 5MORE will be made at -1.
For a fourth point of mana, the spell will be 3d level, and can last so long as the Mage can concentrate; but the 5MORE will be made at -2.

A first level Skillsguy needs a flint, and steel, and tinder, and kindling, and wood, and a successful 5MORE (building a fire) to get a bonfire going.

A first level Mage needs seven points of mana, and a successful 5MORE (Casting; or SRS:Conflagration) to start a bonfire in an arbitrary mass of flammable stuff.
1 point of mana to make the spell last one round at touch* range.
6 points of mana in place of the flint, steel, tinder, kindling, wood, and skill.
If the Mage knew Conflagration, they would need to make 5MORE at -5 (in order to cast that 6th level spell). If the Mage knew only the first level Spark spell (replacing 2 points mana for instantaneous effect, at touch range, of absent flint and steel; still requiring a 5MORE for the actual skill of building a fire), then a roll to cast Conflagration would be made at -9 (modifying Spark to omit the tinder, kindling, wood, and skill; and binding 7 points of mana at first level). If Conflagration was cast at sight range, it would be a 7th level spell (-6 to 5MORE): barely castable, if the 1st level Mage was an EXPERT of Conflagration.

For casting, a 5MORE success means that the caster weaves all the required mana into the intended spell, failure means the caster burns a single mana to discover that circumstances do not support the weave, and a failure of ALL DICE 1 or less promotes a risk of Calamity. In case of a calamitous cast, the Caster loses all the mana meant for the spell, and, ....

=== Mana gathering

At sunrise, or at moonrise*, in any location where characters are, roll (1+Caster level)(d6-mod**) per character. Any conscious Caster may then gather mana from that pool. Highest Caster level takes first die, next Caster level takes next die, etc., repeat until each caster has drawn one die per Caster level.

*This will be near dawn, in a new moon; near sunset, in a full moon. Thus, Casters are most powerful in the full moon, when they easily can access double mana.
**the mod will depend on location. In a "mid-magic" setting, a very few locations will have mod 0; some will have mod 1; many will have mod 2; most, mod 3; a few, mod 5. Lower mods imply greater risk of supernal effects or creatures.

That's a cool idea. I am only concerned with how long it will take to resolve this type of magic in actual play. Fine for out of combat utility things, like creating an item or opening a door. But when you're in combat rounds, you don't want to stop and take five minutes for one player to calculate how they are going to accomplish a single action. Never mind if you have more than one mage in the group. Maybe only codified spells can be used under the pressure of combat, or only effects you have used before and already calculated the cost for.

erikun
2013-10-20, 09:30 AM
Magic, by its definition, does not exist. As such, we can't really give any guidelines to magic. Unlike physics, there is no real-world comparison you can make to justify a set of rules. Not even "does not obey the laws of physics" is something we can clearly state, because there are some magic systems which do avoid violating any laws of physics.

As an example, compare a speeding car to a speeding magical cloud chariot. What happens if a person jumps out of a speeding car? The car continues moving forward, under principles of conservation of momentum. Any other result would be considered unreasonable or unrealistic; even in a highly narrativist system, which is focused on story rather than mechanics, it would still be unreasonable for the car to just stop there or park itself once a person has left it.

What happens if a person jumps out of a moving magical cloud chariot? We don't have a way to definitively answer that. It could continue moving forward and crash through momentum. It could continue moving forward, but as a cloud. It could stop moving altogether with nobody in it. It could vanish, and appear underneath the person's feet again. It could become under its own control, attacking anyone nearby. It could park itself. There's no way to say that one answer is correct and another is incorrect, because each system can be different. If you were familiar with the particular magic system, you could try to determine the effect by how other magic in the system works. However, if you opened a random book, RPG, movie, or something else and saw the above scenario, you'd really have no method to make a decision.


Some magic systems only provide knowledge or manipulate luck, rather than and physics-violating effects. Some have magic as a core physical part of the setting, so that creating fire or leaping twenty meters is something everyone can do, and the distinction between "magic" and "mundane" is really for our sake rather than the people of the setting. Some have magic as a form that can be studied and analyzed and taken apart and understood, much like a science. Some have magic as a talent that can be practiced and trained. Some have magic as a part of a phycial being, such that a character cannot use it if they don't have it. Some have magic as pure random, spontaneous, or even emotional effects, and a character using magic is less controlling it as much as just allowing it to happen.

The point is that you can't really say that "magic" as a whole behaves like science, or is against science, or that it makes sense or that it doesn't make sense. Systems can be made that are all the above, or none of the above, and they would still be "magic" by virtue of them not behaving by the rules of physics.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-20, 12:37 PM
Science isn't a thing, it's a process.
If something can be replicated, you can do science to it.
Magic is just stuff that breaks our laws of physics, emphasis on the 'our' part.

Broken Twin
2013-10-20, 01:19 PM
For me, magic without risk just doesn't feel right. It's one of the reasons that the Binder is still one of my favorite classes from 3.5. If you mess up the contract, then you have to face the consequences. The idea of a mana pool that you use up until it's gone just screams to me of "Oh well, guess I'm not bending reality anymore today." It makes it seem so trivial. Give me cast from hitpoints any day.

I do enjoy messing around with the idea of contract magic. In my most recent GURPS setting, the only way to obtain magic was to seek out and make a contract with beings that were essentially eldritch abominations locked outside of reality. By trading a piece of yourself (either mental or physical), you'd gain the ability to break a small rule of reality. The more you sacrificed, the more powerful your gift would be. The being run on Blue and Orange morality though, so you can't always be sure of what you're going to get.

For instance, one of the NPCs in the setting traded his memories for "The power to destroy my enemies." Now, whenever he becomes endangered, he becomes a near-mindless terrifying beast. But he doesn't remember why, because he traded his memories away.

Eulalios
2013-10-20, 02:11 PM
For me, magic without risk just doesn't feel right.

I'm a big fan of D&D wild magic surges, or White Wolf's M:tA, or Ars Magica with the Wizard's Twilight.

Grinner
2013-10-20, 04:44 PM
Science isn't a thing, it's a process.
If something can be replicated, you can do science to it.
Magic is just stuff that breaks our laws of physics, emphasis on the 'our' part.

A excellent point. However, from a anthropological perspective, magic isn't really a thing either. It too is a process, but unlike science, which is a reductionistic process, it's a semiotic process.

NoldorForce
2013-10-21, 01:30 AM
Magic, by its definition, does not exist. As such, we can't really give any guidelines to magic. Unlike physics, there is no real-world comparison you can make to justify a set of rules. Not even "does not obey the laws of physics" is something we can clearly state, because there are some magic systems which do avoid violating any laws of physics.Thing is, though, that "magic" is fundamentally a construct within some fiction. Even though there are no real-world rules applicable to it, doesn't mean that you can't define your own rules (however broad or strict) to give it meaning within your fiction.

Now magic can be random and/or arbitrary to varying degrees, but the fact that it is fictional does not necessitate these qualities.

erikun
2013-10-21, 02:14 AM
Thing is, though, that "magic" is fundamentally a construct within some fiction. Even though there are no real-world rules applicable to it, doesn't mean that you can't define your own rules (however broad or strict) to give it meaning within your fiction.

Now magic can be random and/or arbitrary to varying degrees, but the fact that it is fictional does not necessitate these qualities.
Magic in a specific setting can (and generally does) have rules, and the people of that world have have great understanding of how those rules work. However, "fantasy magic systems" in general do not. You can't even say that fantasy magic systems have rules, as there are some systems where magic is completely spontaneous and random.

Since we're talking about how magic works or interacts with something like technology - in the general sense, independent of any setting - then we really can't draw much of a conclusion, because there isn't one policy or set of rules that all magic from all settings falls under. Some, like Eberron, understand magic very well and are able to apply it very specifically and consistently throughout the setting. It other settings, such as the Cthulhu Mythos, magic is by definition incomprehensible and cannot be attributed a sort of meaningful structure because of it. (Note: I have not played Call of Cthulhu, so am going by the stories for my definition here.)

Gavran
2013-10-21, 02:20 AM
This may be common, but it isn't always clear what they mean when they have this. Is a spinning wheel technology? Is a rope technology? If not, why not? What they often seem to mean is things involving electricity, in which case why in those same settings can casters fire lightning bolts? Magic and Technology as opposing forces only makes sense if one doesn't think about it too much.

I can't agree with this more. "Technology" isn't a force, nor is it capable of opposing one. Technology is just an umbrella term covering all the ways one can cleverly use things that already exist in interesting ways, and that will always be possible. I've been turned off by settings solely for the fact that they treat technology that way. On the other hand, magic disrupting technology, if done for a better reason than "Magic Vs Technology OMG", is pseudo-reasonable, provided your magic works in a way that defies the laws of the universe rather than through employing unknown exceptions to them.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-21, 02:43 AM
A excellent point. However, from a anthropological perspective, magic isn't really a thing either. It too is a process, but unlike science, which is a reductionistic process, it's a semiotic process.
But, to a certain degree depending on 'verse, you can study magic and have a science of whatever is called 'magic' in that 'verse. Game systems don't generally permit too much delving into the nitty gritty details, but, on the other hand, they tend to be eminently replicable.

faustin
2013-10-21, 06:27 AM
Warlock is a fairly standard contract-based caster. Their magic is the spiritual equivalent of a highschool student giving blowjobs to their teacher in the back alley to get some underhanded benefits.


:smalleek:
I don´t think I can see a warlock character the same way from now. Much less play with one.

Segev
2013-10-21, 08:18 AM
Segev, I love your defenition of magic.

Have yout thought about some of the more exotic spellcasters?

(...)

shadowcaster: make constracts with shadowspirits?I didn't have them in the game I ran, so I didn't really think about it. Due to some setting-specific things, I would probably have them actually be bargaining with/used by a very specific class of psionic entity I called "Silhouettes." They were heavily associated with shadow, were limited shapeshifters who fed on sentient life and added the forms of those they ate to their repertoir, and could be identified by their golden, horizontal-slit cat eyes.

Archivists: Divini lawyers. Like wizards, but in service of a faithThese are trickier, because there's little in concept to differentiate them from wizards. At least in methodology, on the surface.

On the other hand, they're divine casters, and the "definition" of divine magic in this conceptualization is that it is authority granted by virtue of your faith and service to the god.

Thinking about it now, though, I think Archivists would appropriately be a sort of hybrid between Clerics and Wizards. Like Wizards, they study and research the rules and regulations by which the spirit world operates. But like Clerics, they're more focused on the divine courts and on the "whys" of the rules. Their carefully-researched prayers are etiquette guides to multiple spiritual hierarchies as well as legal notes on the policies and processes by which permissions are granted.

Archivists pray according to these guides to inform and request from the appropriate divine hierarchies the authority to implement something. They're almost like self-appointed deputies, aligning themselves intellectually and spiritually without devoting themselves by joining the holy army. They're consultants compared to the officers that Clerics represent.

Their approach relies more on good relations and faithfulness, but it is not the kind of selfless devotion that traditional divine casters use.


Spellthief: ??The mechanics as written don't quite match this, but the theory behind it is that the spellthief is so skilled at impersonation and fraud that he invokes the contract the original caster had prepared or tricks the spirit that normally works for the spontaneous caster into doing the Spellthief's bidding. For long enough to cast it, he commits identity theft.

The mechanics are a little clumsy with it, since he denies the spell to the caster before he casts it, but for most practical gameplay purposes, it's close enough that trying to rejigger the mechanics isn't worth it.


Favoured Soul: Divine politicians?Less "politicians" and more "chosen ones." It's right there in the title. Whether because of nepotism or because they just have something that makes the divine like them, the god(s) who grant them their power have assigned spirits to them. Their actual casting is similar to a sorcerer's: they indicate, and the spirits who work for them obey. The difference is that a sorcerer went out and made friends or allies, while the Favored Soul has a patron who has made him a feudal lord in his hierarchy.


Warlock: ??This one's almost self-explanatory. Warlocks have contracts with a very small number - possibly only one - otherworldly power. They are changed by it; whether partially possessed or altered into a supernatural being in their own right, they don't have much "casting" to do and lack limits to how often they can do it because their contracts (or the process of being "chosen") have actually altered their very nature. They aren't casting spells by commanding spirits; their spell-like abilities are their own magical nature. They do it the way the spirits themselves do.


and what do you do with Tome of Battle stuff?Mostly, this isn't magic. Even the "Su" stuff can be just really excellent expressions of skill: the adept is so skilled that he can do with his body what spirits do. It's akin to spirits learning to do things that normally they cannot, such as writing a letter (which many could never do under normal circumstances; the few that can have other areas of human activity they can't perform).

Eulalios
2013-10-21, 05:50 PM
As an attorney, thinking about contract prep, there's also a customization phase where the form language gets tweaked to accommodate the facts. I think that's the time consuming aspect of casting under Segev's model, and that's the part where attorneys sometimes fail to cross check as they rush to close the deal.

Roll under "chance to learn spell" + caster level - 2 x spell level. Repeat. If either roll success, all well. If both fail, calamity... The caster screwed up d(spell level) terms of the contract.

tasw
2013-10-21, 09:34 PM
You could define the magic/technology divide by energy source.

Technology has a clear source of energy, burning coal, muscle power, steam, etc etc.

Magic does not. The source is not clear. The energy simply comes from no where, or from some other dimension (which would kinda blur the line i suppose).

Ravens_cry
2013-10-21, 10:49 PM
You could define the magic/technology divide by energy source.

Technology has a clear source of energy, burning coal, muscle power, steam, etc etc.

Magic does not. The source is not clear. The energy simply comes from no where, or from some other dimension (which would kinda blur the line i suppose).
That's a pretty arbitrary. Imagine, as it was in the deep past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor), the concentration of uranium 235 in natural uranium was such that water could act as a suitable moderator. Let's imagine someone in early industrial revolution Europe found this out and used it in place of coal.
Given a complete ignorance of the principles involved and the power seemingly coming from nowhere, they could still use it to power steam engines and run machinery. In short, it could be technology, despite being, by their understanding, magic
I'd say technology is harnessing the forces of the universe, whether those forces are understand are not. Heck, for a real world example, humanity used fire long before we understood how it worked.

Broken Twin
2013-10-21, 10:58 PM
Given magic vs technology, I prefer the definition provided below:

Technology is the usage of the laws of reality.
Magic is the ability to temporarily break those laws.

Magic can immediately do anything by ignoring the rules of reality. Technology may eventually replicate those effects by taking advantage of the fine print in the rules.

So they can theoretically accomplish the same things, they just do so in different ways.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-21, 11:18 PM
Given magic vs technology, I prefer the definition provided below:

Technology is the usage of the laws of reality.
Magic is the ability to temporarily break those laws.

Magic can immediately do anything by ignoring the rules of reality. Technology may eventually replicate those effects by taking advantage of the fine print in the rules.

So they can theoretically accomplish the same things, they just do so in different ways.
What is magitech then? Is a locomotive powered by a steam engine with boiler heated by, say, a spirit of fire or a wall of flame magic or technology?

Broken Twin
2013-10-21, 11:25 PM
What is magitech then? Is a locomotive powered by a steam engine with boiler heated by, say, a spirit of fire or a wall of flame magic or technology?

Nothing to say the two can't mix. You wouldn't be able to use a machine to tap into magic energy because by this definition magic energy lies outside the rules of reality. But you COULD use magic to create a form of energy that technology can make use of. Say, an everburning fire to power a locomotive. It burns without fuel because magic was used to bypass the rule that says you need fuel for a fire. It would be risky to bypass its need for oxygen as well, because then there's no mundane way to put the fire out. You can't smother a fire when it doesn't need oxygen to burn.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-21, 11:41 PM
Nothing to say the two can't mix. You wouldn't be able to use a machine to tap into magic energy because by this definition magic energy lies outside the rules of reality. But you COULD use magic to create a form of energy that technology can make use of. Say, an everburning fire to power a locomotive. It burns without fuel because magic was used to bypass the rule that says you need fuel for a fire. It would be risky to bypass its need for oxygen as well, because then there's no mundane way to put the fire out. You can't smother a fire when it doesn't need oxygen to burn.
Then it's really no different from fire, electricity, or the weak nuclear force; merely a harnessed force of nature.
I would even go so far as to say the laws of physics are not broken by such magic in that universe as much as they reveal previously hidden ones.

Gabe the Bard
2013-10-21, 11:50 PM
Someone mentioned wild magic before, and honestly I think that's the only thing I've seen that really distinguishes magic from technology when it comes to actual gameplay. Despite all the fluff about magic, in most circumstances it ends up being either A) a tool to solve a problem or B) a weapon to wipe out hordes of enemies. A lightning bolt and a firestorm work the same way every time, unless the DM gets a little creative or there just happens to be a lot of vegetation around.

However, when you throw wild magic into the mix, and I mean real wild magic, not the watered down change-a-level stuff from 3rd edition, then there is a real element of risk that is translated into the gameplay. Your animated rope might rise up and strangle you, or a baleful polymorph spell might turn your allies into frogs while colorful streamers fly from your fingertips. Or your fireball might just toast your enemies and nothing else. There's at least a small chance (or a 100% certainty if you're using Nahal's Reckless Dweomer) that something incredibly awesome or terribly dismal could happen, without which magic is really just another tool that you use to complete a quest, and it's only difference from modern or science fiction technology is purely cosmetic.

And the argument that magic grants "personal power" whereas technology just hands you a user manual doesn't really stand. There are plenty of examples of characters gaining personal, nontransferable power through the use of technology. The Guild Navigators in Dune are like diviners on steroids. Metallo is pretty much a lich whose phylactery is a big chunk of kryptonite. Heck, even the Giant used the Six Million Dollar Man analogy in Xykon's backstory.

Broken Twin
2013-10-21, 11:52 PM
Then it's really no different from fire, electricity, or the weak nuclear force; merely a harnessed force of nature.
I would even go so far as to say the laws of physics are not broken by such magic in that universe as much as they reveal previously hidden ones.

I prefer to think of it in terms of programming. Technology is ultimately limited by what's written in the reality code, but magic lets you do localized rewrites when the code just doesn't handle what you want it to, either because it's not supported or you haven't figured it out yet. Once it's been figured out, technology can replicate the effect. But if it's not supported (say actual teleportation is literally impossible), then magic can still do so by rewriting where object X is supposed to be located in reality. Once the patch takes effect, object X is where reality now thinks it's supposed to be. Just don't do it too much, or you may fragment the code. :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2013-10-22, 12:04 AM
I prefer to think of it in terms of programming. Technology is ultimately limited by what's written in the reality code, but magic lets you do localized rewrites when the code just doesn't handle what you want it to, either because it's not supported or you haven't figured it out yet. Once it's been figured out, technology can replicate the effect. But if it's not supported (say actual teleportation is literally impossible), then magic can still do so by rewriting where object X is supposed to be located in reality. Once the patch takes effect, object X is where reality now thinks it's supposed to be. Just don't do it too much, or you may fragment the code. :smallbiggrin:
The coder is still limited by what the programming code can do and what the machine can do, so there is still underlying principles at work, principles which could be studied and analysed through observation and experimentation. In short, you can do science to it. You may or may not be able to do practical engineering to it, but, by golly, you can do science to it.

Broken Twin
2013-10-22, 12:12 AM
The coder is still limited by what the programming code can do and what the machine can do, so there is still underlying principles at work, principles which could be studied and analysed through observation and experimentation. In short, you can do science to it. You may or may not be able to do practical engineering to it, but, by golly, you can do science to it.

Yup! :smallsmile:

Odds are good no-one has either the memory or the lifespan to fully figure it out though. And I'd wager most civilizations that get close to fully figuring it out would probably cause a system crash before they got there. Then the programmer will have to either patch the code to get the system running again or restore to an earlier version. Worst case scenario, that reality never gets turned back on.

Werekat
2013-10-22, 12:18 AM
In my fantasy gaming, I prefer the 'magic as science' in a world where Neoplatonism just happens to be the closest possible model of reality-as-is. The 'contract' model is a lot harder to create without breaking verisimilitude for me. This is because the historic ideas which are the inspiration for contract-style magic all already assume that the deity/demon in question and the magician-priest-whatever are already in the same hierarchy and have some kind of relationship even prior to the contract. For example, in Middle Ages Christian magic humans are higher than demons 'socially' by default, even though they call upon names of God and archangels for protection or justification ("I'm technically above you and for this particular thing I've sanction from corporate, go and do what I told you to!"). In Sumerian magic, every person has a personal god and a goddess specifically attached to them, and so on.

Basically, what you need is some kind of relationship with the divine as a basis, and it takes a lot of world-building to do that properly.

Magic as the search for hidden forces and properties, or magia naturalis, is a lot simpler, because it is essentially the precursor to modern science running into easy-to-make mistakes. So you create a setting with hidden properties, and have your mages figure them out. It's more fun for me personally, and easier to boot, because we all grew up with at least a layman's understanding of the aesthetic of science.

I suppose it does make it less wondrous, but I prefer my magic without a sense of wonder anyway.

The second kind of magic I have a fondness is magic being the ultimate expression of someone's will. But that's a different flavor, more 20th century than anything.

And that kind of world doesn't collapse into monotheism if you introduce the notion of 'transcendence,' as in gaining enough power leads you out of the world at hand and unable to either exert influence at all or exert influence on a personal scale. It can also change your thought processes, so... AFAIR, that's the reason M:tA doesn't collapse out of hand.

There's actually a ton of cool ideas for magic that could be taken from RL notions of magic and related things. Building up power through long and arduous rituals, like in India. Or have ritual cleanliness tied to power, like in some Roma cultures or in Shinto. Or have magic be a side-effect of a quest to transcendence and have it come with inevitable personal changes, like in Castaneda's phenomenology-inspired fantasy.

The problem with all of those is that they require a very particular setting to make them work. It's hard to just drag one element in without building a whole society around it.

Ravens_cry
2013-10-22, 12:24 AM
Yup! :smallsmile:

Odds are good no-one has either the memory or the lifespan to fully figure it out though. And I'd wager most civilizations that get close to fully figuring it out would probably cause a system crash before they got there. Then the programmer will have to either patch the code to get the system running again or restore to an earlier version. Worst case scenario, that reality never gets turned back on.
Perhaps, but the same could be said of our own fumbling efforts to understand the laws of physics. One of my favourite analogies for science was Feynman comparing it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4) to watching a small corner of a chess board and trying to reverse engineer the rules by watching a game being played.
One might even say the worries about nuclear war or other manmade disasters could be compared to your 'system crash': too much understanding with too little wisdom.

Broken Twin
2013-10-22, 12:30 AM
Perhaps, but the same could be said of our own fumbling efforts to understand the laws of physics. One of my favourite analogies for science was Feynman comparing it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4) to watching a small corner of a chess board and trying to reverse engineer the rules by watching a game being played.
One might even say the worries about nuclear war or other manmade disasters could be compared to your 'system crash': too much understanding with too little wisdom.

It would make for a great setting, wouldn't it? You might break reality by hitting a bug in underlying code (technology), or you might break it by inserting code without knowing how it will affect the entire system (magic). :smallbiggrin:

Ravens_cry
2013-10-22, 12:33 AM
It would make for a great setting, wouldn't it? You might break reality by hitting a bug in underlying code (technology), or you might break it by inserting code without knowing how it will affect the entire system (magic). :smallbiggrin:
It would certainly lead to some interesting times.:smallamused:

Broken Twin
2013-10-22, 12:41 AM
It would certainly lead to some interesting times.:smallamused:

Definitely would make for an interesting in-world history. "Nearly two centuries ago, all the magic that had been unearthed by the glorious city of Atlantis suddenly stopped working. To this day, no-one knows why."

When really, Atlantian magic caused a fatal reality crash two centuries ago, and the programmer closed the loophole they discovered to access the code through. Too bad the Atlantians had used their magic to build their breathtaking city above the ocean...

Ravens_cry
2013-10-22, 12:50 AM
Definitely would make for an interesting in-world history. "Nearly two centuries ago, all the magic that had been unearthed by the glorious city of Atlantis suddenly stopped working. To this day, no-one knows why."

When really, Atlantian magic caused a fatal reality crash two centuries ago, and the programmer closed the loophole they discovered to access the code through. Too bad the Atlantians had used their magic to build their breathtaking city above the ocean...
I am reminded of the Pratchett's Time Monks, though on a deeper level than the temporal.

Thrudd
2013-10-22, 01:31 AM
The only problem with the "magic breaks the laws of reality" description is that it doesn't/can't. Or, rather, I should say that it depends on how you are defining "reality". A limited "reality", which really could be described more as a specific dimension/realm/plane of existence can be "broken".
In a more literal sense, if magic exists in a world, it must be "real" in some sense, and therefore a part of "reality". It must come from somewhere, be caused by something, and follow some rules. Whether or not the characters of a world/setting know and understand where magic comes from and what really causes it is another question. From their perspective, it may indeed break the rules of "reality". Whatever method is used to access magic in a setting, it must be logically possible for a person within the setting to question where magic comes from and how it works and seek to explain it as a part of universal reality. It may be impossible for a normal human mind to comprehend, where only deities and spirits have the ability to manipulate or understand the forces necessary to create magical effects.
I really like the contractual magic setting. But I could also get into a setting where "magic" is really caused by applications of some super science or an application of multi-dimensional principles from a lost civilization that nobody really understands anymore. This is the idea behind Vance's "The Dying Earth". A system like this, however, would require some explanation for how clerics, druids, and sorcerors are able to accomplish their feats. Perhaps some confluence of the ancient superscience with contractual magic or relationships with powerful extradimensional beings who understand and maybe even created the "magic" science in the first place.

Jay R
2013-10-22, 11:10 AM
It's fairly easy for me because I assume that high levels of technology cannot work in a magical world. If people can levitate, gravity is not universal, and momentum is not conserved. If they can create fireballs with their mind, energy is not conserved.

In a game a few years ago, my introductory document included the following:


A warning about meta-knowledge. In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion. Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche. But in a world with teleportation, levitation, and fireball spells, Newton’s three laws of motion do not apply, and energy and momentum are not conserved. Accordingly, modern scientific meta-knowledge will do you more harm than good. On the other hand, knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, medieval alchemy, or medieval and classical legends might be useful occasionally.

Segev
2013-10-22, 11:33 AM
I confess to not following why "magic-as-contracts" requires something not provided in my description, but to each their own. It resolved several conceptual problems I was having, for me, so I'm happy with it. ^_^


As for "magic breaks the laws of reality by definition," I suggest looking at Mage: The Ascension. This is the old World of Darkness version, not the new.

In it, the "laws of reality" as we know them result from a consensus of what we, as a general body of humanity, believe the laws of physics to be. The world exists as it is because enough of us believe it works that way strongly enough.

Mages are those who have somehow "awakened" to this truth, and have cracked their own perception on how things "really work." The magic they do is "science" or "technology," but under a paradigm - a set of physical and spiritual laws - that is distinctly NOT how things work in "reality."

They can get away with a lot when nobody else is looking, because they know how things "should" work in their paradigm, so they do. Still, particularly egregious violations of consensual reality's paradigm can cause backlash as the impossible reconciles with what is in the form of paradox.

And if others are watching, you can STILL pull it off...but their disbelief in it being possible makes it all the more impossible, not only rendering it harder to pull off, but making the paradoxical backlash to reconcile the effects even worse.

Slipperychicken
2013-10-22, 02:48 PM
It's fairly easy for me because I assume that high levels of technology cannot work in a magical world. If people can levitate, gravity is not universal, and momentum is not conserved. If they can create fireballs with their mind, energy is not conserved.


This one is also a good argument against any engineering-majors in your group trying to use water-bending to create black holes, or accomplish similar physics shenanigans.

Jay R
2013-10-22, 03:12 PM
This one is also a good argument against any engineering-majors in your group trying to use water-bending to create black holes, or accomplish similar physics shenanigans.

That was the point. I started playing D&D at an elite engineering university.

Eulalios
2013-11-30, 08:19 AM
Kinda late to the game here, but I'll toss in my own pet idea of "magic" as knowledge of the interface language for accessing highly complex self-replicating nanobot swarms.