Magic spells outside RPGs

[Yora]

I very often hear that spells as seen in D&D and most videogames are pretty atypical when it comes to magic in the fantasy genre in general.
However, the only wizard from literature I actually know is Gandalf, who indeed uses magic very sparingly. Burning pinecones and blocking a door are the only things I really remember, and he somehow defeated a balrog by undisclosed means. Other than that, he's a guy who is very well informed.

Spells encountered by Conan are pretty rare, but they seem to fit the D&D model pretty well. There is one fight, where a group of wizards travels through the air as a cloud of smoke, paralyzes Conan, and takes control of another mans body. In another story, a wizard controls the movement of a corpse to get a key from hook and he later turns into a large eagle. And the priests of Set can kill with a touch.

I understand when people complain about wizards moving mountains, teleporting between worlds, summoning hordes of demons and creating magic force fields. But apart from the scale of these spells, is it really that uncommon in books and movies that wizards just wave their hand and something impossible happens instantly with no terrible cost or drain?

[tensai_oni]

You have it all backwards. It's not that fictional wizards can cause spells only with "cost" or "drain". The difference here is that RPG (video game and tabletop both) style spellcasters have effects that are very quantified. You memorize a Fireball spell, and then cast a fireball spell.

It's not how it works in fiction. Rather, most spellcasters have control over "domains", for example you have control over fire, or animals, or can shapeshift, and what you do with that power depends on your creativity and force of will. Magic is flexible, ill-defined and mysterious.

When effects are clearly defined, it's because the spell in question is a ritual or a potion. It's alchemy: Perform action A for result B.

Also the biggest difference between RPG and other fiction styles of spellcasting? "Attack spells" are virtually unknown. Wizards who fling fireballs and magic missiles is a thing that happens almost exclusively in fantasy inspired by existing RPGs (like DnD) or taking a piss out of them.

There are still exceptions. Harry Potter is a very obvious example.

[Math_Mage]

D&D, and RPGs that take their cues from D&D, run on a Vancian magic system--i.e., the system derives from something similar to the one Jack Vance uses in his fantasy novels--so it's not so much that it's atypical for fantasy as that it's a fairly specific expression of magic in fantasy. There are lots of other ways that fantasy handles magic, that aren't expressed very well in D&D.

[Yora]

That's how these games crunch the numbers under the hood. Which I indeed believe is a very poor way to do that.

But I often read that the whole idea of spells at your fingertip is supposedly an RPG thing.

[endoperez]

Besides spells, it's common to have a somewhat more open-ended power with specific limitations. Great strength in some form might be a power. Ability to charm by looking at someone's eyes, ability to fly, ability to control fire, ability to shoot lightning bolts, etc. These often have no costs at all.



Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell has very strictly categorized magic. There's a specific spell for doing a specific thing, and if you learn it and do the thing then it will work. There's also specific counterspells for some spells. Not being able to counter one's spell can be a problem. The side-effects of the spell can be problematic. Summoning a Fairy is dangerous unless you can see, and/or protect yourself from it.

If you know the principles, you can also improvise, or use those principles to do other similar things. One of the spells that was most commonly used in the books was the one used to move geography such as roads or hills or cities. The same spell could transport various things across variable distances. I don't remember any wizards ever being unable to cast any of their spells - they seem to be drawing on a source of magic outside of them, possibly the land itself. There's no drain on the wizard.


Discworld has specific spells. They're usually named just because their names are a joke of some sort.

With a single spell by Lawrence Watt-Evans obviously has wizards who learn specific, separate, singular spells. This is true across all Ethshar novels, but they also have different magic systems. I don't remember any balancing factors at the moment.

Many manga and anime series (and light novels = illustrated books) have D&D-inspired systems with specific spells. They might have a foothold in Japanese fantasy fiction, but unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with them.

[Tengu_temp]

Many manga and anime series (and light novels = illustrated books) have D&D-inspired systems with specific spells. They might have a foothold in Japanese fantasy fiction, but unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with them.

Most fantasy manga and anime are inspired by Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy to some extent. And both of these were inspired by DND in their earliest incarnations.

[endoperez]

Most fantasy manga and anime are inspired by Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy to some extent. And both of these were inspired by DND in their earliest incarnations.

Thanks for the clarification.

[jedipotter]

I very often hear that spells as seen in D&D and most videogames are pretty atypical when it comes to magic in the fantasy genre in general.

Spells in D&D are horrible. They are very dull and boring and bland. In D&D when you cast a spell, it does exactly want it says the spell does on page 42. Except for a couple things in the rules that everyone knows about, all spells will always work and always do exactly what they should do at all times. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room where a DM can hide behind the Custom rule and a tiny bit of wiggle room where a DM can use a rule or two, but other then that: all spells must work by-the-book at all times.


Magic in most Fantasy is nothing like that. Most magic is not so boring, mechanical and perfectly predictable. The first thing that makes most magic magic in fiction is that it is not 100% perfect. When someone casts a spell, anything can happen..and often does. Magic is like raw chaotic energy, it can be used and shaped into what a spellcaster wants, but not always and not 100%.

Most magic in Fantasy is no where even close to the insane power level of a D&D spellcaster. First the D&D spellcaster has the absolute certainty that a spell will work. Second few D&D spells have any sort of real cost, drawbacks or side effects. And third a D&D spell can do so much more then other types of magic.

And it is worth saying again: Most fictional magic has a cost, price, drawback, or side effect. D&D spellcasters have very little other then pointless token ones like they need some gold. And even then there is almost no effect one the magic of the spell itself.

Charmed Magic in charmed is very powerful, but also unpredictable, for everyone. Everyone has to be very careful when they use magic as just one wrong word can lead to all sorts of problems. There is no exact magic and spells that work 100% of the time. When making potions they can draw upon what others have learned in the past, but often they just have to make educated guesses and mix away. They often have to rewrite spells several times, and spells don't always work exactly they way everyone would like them too. Dark and evil magic has a huge cost to ones soul and life and even mind.

Once Upon a Time The big, big over all theme here is ''magic has a price''. Magic is quite powerful, but not all powerful and can be beaten by real emotions and thoughts and feelings. For example you can't charm a man to not love his wife. Small magic has little consequences, but big magic can have great cost.

Doctor Strange (marvel comics magic) is all powerful as magic can almost do anything, but it has a high cost on the body and mind. Powerful magic can weaken and even kill a spellcaster. There are some tired and true spells, but most wizards have to make up spell rhymes on the fly, and your skill sets if they will work or not. Magic is hard to control and can often run wild.

Ed Greenwood His books have magic as a almost living thing. A spellcaster can reach out and touch and shape magic, but then anything can happen. His novels don't even come close to using the D&D rules. No Greenwod wizard ''casts a spell like it says on page 42''. Every single spell cast by every single spellcaster is unique. Magic does endless, wonderful things, that no one understands. Lots of magic has a high cost, even the life of the caster. Magic can be broken, wild, and malfunction. Almost anything can happen with magic at any time.

[Zaydos]

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser: Follows the Conan mold, magic is powerful, dangerous, and sometimes goes awry. It's probably a little more dangerous than in Conan, and actually one of the major sources in D&D and Sword and Sorcery in general (the author having coined the term) although nowhere near as big as its direct inspiration (Conan); major source of inspiration for Discworld (read the first 2 Discworld books). Trivia: the author was interviewed for the first issue of Dragon Magazine to talk about a Lhankmar war game.

Elric: The other big S&S series. Again magic mostly follows the Conan mold, but despite the main character being one of the finest wizards in the land he doesn't use spells in combat, magic is big. It moves mountains, it turns battles, but it is time consuming. Exalted's sorcery is similar to magic in Elric, probably because Moorcock is a major influence of Exalted (and early D&D); supposedly Exalted 3rd Edition is going to make sorcery "like magic in Elric" and this confuses me since it already was.

Nine Princes of Amber: Magic is never fully defined and comes in multiple forms. The Amberites and Courts of Chaos both have some level of reality warping, and wizards have an echo of their power. They do prepare spells, by making trumps and placing enchantments on objects; in theory they can cast a spell as a time consuming ritual and even make a new spell on the fly when doing so, but typically they set-up a quick-fire version ahead of time and it's fairly similar to a prepared spell (except can theoretically be dispelled before being cast).

Wheel of Time: Magic works by weaving threads of the divine power of creation (simplification here). There are weaves that are common place and typically you learn them really well before using them, but in times of duress people have been known to invent entirely new ones as needed. Weaving takes something out of the "caster" but many characters can do it with about as much effort as swinging swords. Honestly I'd represent this by something similar to Invocations with the ability to make new ones on the fly by spending Action Points.

The Black Company: Read the first book, couldn't tell you anything meaningful about the rules of magic yet

[Zrak]

I never really understood the complaint that certain ideas of spellcasting don't "make sense." Sure, there isn't really a good reason for someone to instantly forget a fireball spell the moment they've cast it, but it's strange to complain about that while accepting the fact they managed to create a gigantic ball of fire by waggling their fingers around and speaking some Pig Latin. Even the most wearingly strict adherents to Sanderson's Law require such a massive suspension of disbelief up-front that it seems untenably capricious to demand "reasonable exlanations" afterwards. In general, I feel the same way about most "Sanderson's Law" magic as I do about the technobabble in any given science fiction show; it's as obnoxious as all other exposition, with the added insult of usually not even being particularly plot-relevant exposition and, as if that weren't bad enough, being so largely composed of gibberish as to not really expose anything other than the author having a little notebook in which he makes sure he uses his gibberish in an internally consistent manner. I guess it would be impressive in the era of oral tradition, but now that things can be written down I don't really see what is particularly impressive about a guy('s editor) remembering that Ill'tshub energy can only be used to manipulate to Conmeo fields during the moon of Lyrouseis.

The biggest difference between games and fiction, at least with regard to depictions of magic, is the requirements of the genre. Just as the ideas of mana/spell slots/&c. are much more common in games than in literature, extremely long casting times are much more common in literature than in games; the same way being able to cast unlimited spells could upset the balance of a game, taking like a month to prepare a ritual isn't very fun for the player. Similarly, healing magic is ubiquitous in games because most people find it more fun to charge into the dragon's lair right after slaying its ogre guardian than after months of bedrest and physical therapy, while it's much more rare in fiction because the dramatic impact of seeing a character cut clean in half is considerably lessened if you know he can get put back together with like six seconds of effort. Of course, there are exceptions to all of this, but the general expectations of any given genre more control its implementation of magic than anything else.

[Gnoman]

Most fantasy manga and anime are inspired by Dragon Warrior and/or Final Fantasy to some extent. And both of these were inspired by DND in their earliest incarnations.

Missed a step in there. FF and DW weren't inspired directly by DnD. Rather, they were heavily influenced by the first Wizardry game (aside from lacking most of Wizardry's trademark cheap shots, the combat in the first DW game is nigh-identical, while FF essentially changed only the perspective), which in turn was influenced by DnD.

[Tengu_temp]

I knew I forgot something. The Wizardry series still gets new games in Japan and is fairly popular there! Also, Dragon Warrior's original name is simply Dragon Quest (1).

[Gnoman]

I can never remember if Warrior or Quest was the original. Both make perfect sense, and I was mostly a Square fan as a kid.

[Yora]

Thanks, jedipotter, for explaining what I meant. I've come upon that a couple of times, but had only a hazy memory of it since I never fully understood the arguments. That's exactly what I meant.

Speaking of anime, Rune Soldier is completely unapologetic about being straight out of D&D, with its almost explicit character classes and clerics weilding staffs and hammers and using Turn Undead, but I don't remember any of the spells being analogous to anything from D&D.

[Zaydos]

Thanks, jedipotter, for explaining what I meant. I've come upon that a couple of times, but had only a hazy memory of it since I never fully understood the arguments. That's exactly what I meant.

Speaking of anime, Rune Soldier is completely unapologetic about being straight out of D&D, with its almost explicit character classes and clerics weilding staffs and hammers and using Turn Undead, but I don't remember any of the spells being analogous to anything from D&D.

Seeing as how Rune Soldier is the sister series to Record of Lodoss War (same creators) which started out as a D&D campaign journal this is not too surprising that it's reminiscent of D&D. Can't say much about the magic system (only seen RoLW which iirc included Melf's Minute Meteors and Sleep).

[Yora]

There are a few spells in Lodoss, but the system seems to be completely unlike D&D in every other way. At least the elves, if not even all mages, cast spells by summoning an elemental spirit who does make the actual magical effect. Ice spirits to freeze, wind spirits to make something fly, and so on. And no hint of memorization.

[TheThan]

I’ve had the same problem with magic in RPGs.

Let me see if I can explain. I didn’t grow up with Tolkien, I didn’t grow up with harry Potter; I didn’t grow up with DnD books like the dark elf trilogy and I didn’t grow up with Anime. I grew up with sword and sorcery: Conan the Barbarian, The 7th voyage of Sinbad (and other Ray Harryhausen films), The Beastmaster, Krull, and other such fantasy movies.

These have the biggest influence on my ideas of fantasy. It’s what I’m comfortable with it’s what I know and like. When I think of fantasy, that’s’ the first sort of fantasy that pops into my head, Tolkien and the others come about afterwards. The thing about these movies is that magic always is difficult, and has consequences. Magic is not to be used lightly. Sometimes magic require rituals and time to perform, sometimes there is a price to pay for using magic, other times special materials need to be acquired before the spell can be cast.

While some of this is found in dnd (somatic and material components), most of the time these are brushed over so much that there are virtually no consequences or prices to pay, and it’s all too easy. It’s not that I want spellcasters to be punished for using their magic; I just want magic to feel like the magic I grew up with in these old shows.

[Cikomyr]

Obligatory Tasty Underated Nerdrage video link

I heartily recommend it. It strikes right into this topic's heart.

[jseah]

Even the most wearingly strict adherents to Sanderson's Law require such a massive suspension of disbelief up-front that it seems untenably capricious to demand "reasonable exlanations" afterwards. In general, I feel the same way about most "Sanderson's Law" magic as I do about the technobabble in any given science fiction show; it's as obnoxious as all other exposition, with the added insult of usually not even being particularly plot-relevant exposition and, as if that weren't bad enough, being so largely composed of gibberish as to not really expose anything other than the author having a little notebook in which he makes sure he uses his gibberish in an internally consistent manner. I guess it would be impressive in the era of oral tradition, but now that things can be written down I don't really see what is particularly impressive about a guy('s editor) remembering that Ill'tshub energy can only be used to manipulate to Conmeo fields during the moon of Lyrouseis.

It's more than just an internally consistent set of use cases. Usually, these sorts of systems start out with a few basic principles then adhere to them to generate all the various magic effects. Note that D&D is not a Sanderson's Law magic system.

Sanderson's law magic tends to result in less supernatural magic (or what I like to call "woo woo" magic). Stories built on the principle give the sense that magic is understandable, that people can learn not just to use it but to actually grasp its basic principles.

Additionally, Sanderson's Law magic systems find it easier to incorporate magic into everyday life and society. Questions like "how long does it take a fire spell to boil water" might not be important in the context of adventuring and combat, but when you're thinking about using magical fire to light your streets you need to be able to answer these things.

[Thrudd]

The problem is that an RPG is a game, and needs to be playable. Gygax and the D&D creators found in Vance's Dying Earth a system that allowed for easily codifiable magic effects and restricted it sufficiently that someone could actually play as a wizard alongside other types of characters.

Of course, nowadays people have come up with many other ways to represent magic in RPGs, but the same problem remains, you need a playable game. If magic is to be something that players interact with and use on a regular basis, it needs to be systematized in some way, and that systemization usually means it loses some of the mysteriousness and unpredictability that is often associated with it.

"Lord of the Isles" is a book series by David Drake where magic is treated in an interesting way. It's use has serious costs, and requires elaborate rituals based on elements of ancient Sumerian religion. The first book was good as an interesting fantasy setting, though the plot somewhat predictable. I quit the series after the second book because it had just gotten repetitive with characters that never seemed to change, though there are apparently eight or nine more books.

[BWR]

"Lord of the Isles" is a book series by David Drake where magic is treated in an interesting way. It's use has serious costs, and requires elaborate rituals based on elements of ancient Sumerian religion. The first book was good as an interesting fantasy setting, though the plot somewhat predictable. I quit the series after the second book because it had just gotten repetitive with characters that never seemed to change, though there are apparently eight or nine more books.

I powered on through book three before I gave up. Yes, I experienced the same thing you did - first book was good, the rest were exactly the same as the first in all important respects. No character development, same plot, same type of bad guys, same progression and resolution to problems. I have never seen such blatant self-plagiarism to sell books. Even (the strictly speaking immmensly worse) "Elminster in Hell" had more innovation in plot than that series.

[Closet_Skeleton]

From what I know of real world esoteric traditions, they do seem to be more D&D like than 'fluid'. Real spells (that is, rituals claimed as spells in real life from pre-19th century sources) tend to be recipe-like.

The exception is spirit conjuring, but there the act of conjuration is rule bound even if the resulting summoned spirit can be more freeform in its applications. Spirits also have to be bound by rules, which is one interpretation of the limits of a spell. Maybe a fire spirit could do just about anything fire related, but a free fire spirit is not something you can control and paradoxically therefore outside the realm of magic.

'Magic energy' doesn't really seem to appear much in early esoterica. Possibly because its inspired by scientific energy fields discovered in the 19th century (energy itself as we [don't] understand it is a modern concept). But its also likely because esoterica dealt with a very formulated metaphysics tied into contemporary religions and modern fantasy kind of tends to throw that away. You don't need to say "the weave of magic" when you can say "makes pacts with demons and angels". In order to be religiously non-specific fantasy fiction has to be a bit more vague in its metaphysics.

The last important element is that in agricultural societies the concept of weather control is something highly formulated. Since most of us are no longer farmers, we speculate about natural forces in a very different way. Harvests and earthquakes are very different experiences of nature and oddly enough if you don't grow your own food then the much rarer earthquakes may register higher on your idea of what nature is.

When society's elites based their power of magical abilities to influence harvests, famine could be blamed on the failure of the elite's powers to keep the seasons regular. Now we think of magic as something that changes nature and therefore find the concept of magical powers being required to maintain the status quo a bit odd, but it does still show up in urban fantasy because it allows guardians that hide magic from regular experience.

[hamishspence]

How was Merlin's magic depicted in the earliest King Arthur stories that incorporated him?

[Killer Angel]

But I often read that the whole idea of spells at your fingertip is supposedly an RPG thing.

If we want to include psionics into magic, then we have lots of movies (Star Wars, Scanners and so on), where power is effectively available at your fingertips.

[Grinner]

It's more than just an internally consistent set of use cases. Usually, these sorts of systems start out with a few basic principles then adhere to them to generate all the various magic effects. Note that D&D is not a Sanderson's Law magic system.

Sanderson's law magic tends to result in less supernatural magic (or what I like to call "woo woo" magic). Stories built on the principle give the sense that magic is understandable, that people can learn not just to use it but to actually grasp its basic principles.

The thing about Sanderson's magic is that it's frequently more akin to a science than an art. The rules of magic are quantifiable, well-documented and, to the practitioners, well-known. This leaves little room for surprise. It doesn't help that Sanderson frequently wastes no time explaining every detail.

Of course, nowadays people have come up with many other ways to represent magic in RPGs, but the same problem remains, you need a playable game. If magic is to be something that players interact with and use on a regular basis, it needs to be systematized in some way, and that systemization usually means it loses some of the mysteriousness and unpredictability that is often associated with it.

I'd actually argue that some degree of systematization is good, as it helps maintain the internal consistency needed for suspension of disbelief. The danger lies in two things, however.

First, you want to avoid what is, in my opinion, Sanderson's classic mistake: overexplanation. He tends to describe things in such detail and so quickly that he really leaves little room to develop it. Really it's more a problem of pacing than design, but it's a problem nonetheless.

Second, and probably more importantly, magic often fails to be special. I think the mark of a good fantasy novel is that the more supernatural elements fit into the bigger picture somehow. Magic isn't just a convenient means to an end, but it also serves a greater purpose altogether. When magic doesn't do this and simply exists for the sake of looking cool, then what you have is a drama.

Personally, I like this post Mark Hall wrote on the subject:

Ok, here's the thing... magic, through history, has usually been of a type called "Theurgy"... basically, invoking gods to do the things you want to happen. That is, of course, what priests in D&D do, but it's a common trait of wizards, witches, and all sorts of other "magic-users" through history.* Even in modern contexts, you see this... Dr. Strange has a tendency to invoke names in his spells, for example, and Willow invoked Osiris to raise Buffy from the dead.

A more modern conception of magic (common to chaos magicians and Thelema-types) views magic as energy, and wizards as those who know how to manipulate that energy. That's the kind of magic that wizards in D&D tend to do... they're not really calling on an outside intelligence to grant them power, but using the power around them to create effects.

Now, a lot of modern fictional sorcerers do a combination of this. They invoke entities for powerful effects, but less powerful effects (such as levitating a pencil with which you stake a vampire) is done through personal power. This actually somewhat mimics the AD&D conception of clerical magic... 1st and 2nd level effects came from the priest's own faith, 3rd and 4th came from servants of their deity, and 5th-7th level effects came from the deity themselves (I might have made a mistake on those breakdowns, but the jist is correct). D&D wizards completely ignore this... while they CAN call upon powerful entities with certain spells, they mostly do things through the "science of magic"... a lot of "do X to achieve Y".

D&D has really muddled the discussion of magic, because they've spent 40 years using a mish-mash of words to describe in-game concepts, which confuses things when you try to use them in their traditional context... such as my use of the word "invoke/invocation" here, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with fireballs.

*Leaving aside the question of whether magic is real or not; that's how they claim their magic works, and we're not going to argue whether or not they're right about it.

[factotum]

The thing about these movies is that magic always is difficult, and has consequences. Magic is not to be used lightly. Sometimes magic require rituals and time to perform, sometimes there is a price to pay for using magic, other times special materials need to be acquired before the spell can be cast.

Not sure why you're putting that as something separate from Tolkien, because his work is pretty much entirely about there being serious consequences for misusing magic--just look at the Ringwraiths.

[Closet_Skeleton]

How was Merlin's magic depicted in the earliest King Arthur stories that incorporated him?

Prophecy. Dream interpretation.

Older King Arthur stories have more dramatic sorts of magic but funnily enough don't include Merlin.

The thing about Sanderson's magic is that it's frequently more akin to a science than an art. The rules of magic are quantifiable, well-documented and, to the practitioners, well-known. This leaves little room for surprise. It doesn't help that Sanderson frequently wastes no time explaining every detail

My own setting tends to use the worst of both worlds. Magic has quantifiable rules and lots of time is spent explaining them, but the explanations the characters give aren't necessarily accurate and are often contradictory or deliberate in character lies. My magic is a science in that everything it does can only be interpreted through abstract theories that are not necessarily the same thing as true understanding.

[TheThan]

Not sure why you're putting that as something separate from Tolkien, because his work is pretty much entirely about there being serious consequences for misusing magic--just look at the Ringwraiths.

I’m not talking about the misuse of power; I’m talking about having that power to begin with.

In the movie “the golden voyage of Sinbad” the evil sorcerer Koura has some fairly powerful magic, but every time he calls upon that magic he ages, therefore there is a limit to how much magic he can actually use. The cost of using his magic is obvious and easy to see, he’s perfectly aware of it. They even make a point of it when his assistant begs him to stop using it because of the toll it takes on his body. This is one of the reasons why he’s after the movie’s maguffin. Otherwise he wouldn’t have a reason to go after it. There is a clear price to pay for having more power than ordinary men. There are consequences that he must take into consideration whenever he uses his magic; he can’t solve every problem with magic.

In Tolkien’s world there isn’t a clear price to pay for having that power; at least from my understanding (I’m no Tolkien scholar). The nazgul were set up for failure by Sauron from the beginning, he wanted them to fall to darkness in order to enslave them. From my limited understanding, Gandalf, Radagast, Elrond, Galadriel and all the other “good” magic users we see never seem to suffer any ill effects of using their magic… not that we see their magic much if at all.

[factotum]

Thing is, all those people are either angelic (Gandalf, Radagast) or thousands of year old immortals (the Elves), and even people of that level of experience can become corrupted by the power they wield--see Saruman. That's the real price of using that power in Tolkien's world, the possibility of losing yourself and becoming the thing you hate. (Galadriel more or less says as much to Frodo when he offers her the Ring in Lothlorien).

[Math_Mage]

From what I know of real world esoteric traditions, they do seem to be more D&D like than 'fluid'. Real spells (that is, rituals claimed as spells in real life from pre-19th century sources) tend to be recipe-like.

The exception is spirit conjuring, but there the act of conjuration is rule bound even if the resulting summoned spirit can be more freeform in its applications. Spirits also have to be bound by rules, which is one interpretation of the limits of a spell. Maybe a fire spirit could do just about anything fire related, but a free fire spirit is not something you can control and paradoxically therefore outside the realm of magic.

'Magic energy' doesn't really seem to appear much in early esoterica. Possibly because its inspired by scientific energy fields discovered in the 19th century (energy itself as we [don't] understand it is a modern concept). But its also likely because esoterica dealt with a very formulated metaphysics tied into contemporary religions and modern fantasy kind of tends to throw that away. You don't need to say "the weave of magic" when you can say "makes pacts with demons and angels". In order to be religiously non-specific fantasy fiction has to be a bit more vague in its metaphysics.

The last important element is that in agricultural societies the concept of weather control is something highly formulated. Since most of us are no longer farmers, we speculate about natural forces in a very different way. Harvests and earthquakes are very different experiences of nature and oddly enough if you don't grow your own food then the much rarer earthquakes may register higher on your idea of what nature is.

When society's elites based their power of magical abilities to influence harvests, famine could be blamed on the failure of the elite's powers to keep the seasons regular. Now we think of magic as something that changes nature and therefore find the concept of magical powers being required to maintain the status quo a bit odd, but it does still show up in urban fantasy because it allows guardians that hide magic from regular experience.

I disagree that being recipe-like is enough to be D&D-like. D&D has material components, but most of its spells are not rituals in the sense of the "real spells" you mentioned; the feel is more 'magic trick that's actually magic' than 'ritual'. It also has all the memorization and fire-and-forget-and-forget and predictability stuff.

There's one other fairly old aspect of magic, popular in modern fiction, that hasn't been mentioned: the True Names/Language of Power stuff. Which D&D tried to do only once, resulting in the most broken/broken class ever.