Laws of magical "physics", and rethinking archetype distinctions

[Sword of Spirit]

There are a number of people who sometimes get a bit frustrated by the manner in which many game systems separate magical abilities from non-magical abilities. For instance, many, many games have an entire chapter or more dedicated to "Magic" or "Spellcasting", with no clear analogues for things like "Fighting", or "Martial Arts" (beyond general rules that also encompass magical use in combat situations). In some such games (most editions of D&D for example) magic is an exception based system that uses its own set of rules to do things in a mechanically completely different way than anything else in the game.

For example, magic might function in discrete spells, or created spells formed from certain types of effects, while sword-fighting involves only the normal combat rules with perhaps some improvisation. This can be true even in a system with spontaneously created spells, when those spells follow such different rules and function in such different ways that they use a different mini-game from the combat rules everyone else is using.

There are other systems that go entirely the other way (such as 4e D&D), and codify various powers or maneuvers in similar ways for non-magical combat as they do for spellcastings. Other systems (like Exalted) do the same thing but pretty much everything is supernatural.

So the most common way of handling the imbalance for those who see it as undesirable is to basically make non-magical "spells" to allow warrior types and mage types to get on the same page with their mechanical implementation (and perhaps balance).

A few nights ago an alternate idea hit me that seemed really exciting. I just wanted to share some thoughts about it.

What if we take it in entirely the other direction? Rather than requiring some special power/maneuvers/ability to use certain types of abilities, we reduce all abilities to normal interaction with the natural laws of the world.

You basically define a list of magical laws customized for the system (fire = passion, flowers = life, water = change, meditation for empowerment, incantations for creation, etc) and then anyone can interact with them as a sort of technology.

Note that I'm not proposing that everything becomes magical or that the line between magic and non-magical has to become highly blurry (it could, but this concept wouldn't require that). Rather, the idea is that you treat magical effects like any other effects someone could perform with the proper skill and knowledge.

So how is this any different than just having a skill-based system (where someone might learn Sorcery, or Swordsmanship, or Tailoring, etc) you might wonder. Well, I recommend playing with skill-based systems unless you have a strong reason not to (such as "I want to play D&D!" which is a perfectly good reason), but this is still something different than just a skill-based system.

Just as anyone can pick up a club and hit someone, or try their hand at a bit of cloth mending, anyone could manipulate the magical laws of the world to get effects, and it would follow similar rules as anything else.

So for instance, let's say that "the power of names" is something in the magical laws. If you know someone's true name, and you have a physical piece of them (hair, nail clippings, blood), any magical act aimed at them is more powerful. Let's say that fire, roses, and some sort of incense are supposed to combine to have mystically romantic properties. So if a character knows that (and not everyone would, but it could be fairly easy to find if desired), they can gather the physical elements, and burn them in a fire while speaking the true names of two people--to attempt a love spell on them.

Here is how it all fits together. The method of determining if that sort of thing works is identical the method of determining any other task resolution. If someone without any skills can hit someone with a club or sew up a hole in their shirt, they can do this also (perhaps a better example might be forging someone's handwriting, as you'd probably need to see their handwriting and have specific materials to make a decent attempt, but anyone could try it).

In that sort of paradigm, advanced training (skill) in fighting and magic and anything else can be handled in the same way in the system, by understanding how things work in the world's assumed "physics" and letting people interact with them in ways that make sense.

Now I know this isn't revolutionary--there are plenty of narrativist style systems that work this way. However, the way that hit me isn't limited to loose narrativist systems. It could be implemented in a more simulationism sensitive system also, simply be clearly defining the magical laws of the world and how they interact with each other, and then using the standard action resolution tasks to manipulate them.

There actually isn't anything stopping you from also adding on more powerful spells, fighting maneuvers, etc, but that isn't really the point of what I'm getting at, so it doesn't matter whether that is involved or not.

This also doesn't require that the world necessarily be high magic, or widespread magic either. This information could be relatively rare, just like gunpowder or knowing an ancient language, but it is just as reliable when implemented, all things considered.

This just hit me in a different way, and I thought it was worth sharing.

 

[Nagol]

I find it a decent idea where the devil lies in the implementation.

Not directly related but the first thing to come to mind:
Fantasy Wargaming, a RPG from the early '80s had as part of its magical systems astrological correspondences linked to magical effects so the strength of fire magic was controlled by fire signs and reduced by water signs, for example. The correspondences existed through physical expressions: specific plants, gems, colours, animals et al. were astrologically associated as were more ephemeral qualities like numbers and dates. So people could (and did) adjust their environments to increase or decrease the locations association with the signs as they deemed valuable.

It was a bear of a system to keep track of and apply the effect to magic. It definitely needed some abstraction.

More on topic:
The system might look like the one in Dragonquest with magic colleges or it could define a bunch of magical principles like Contagion, Sympathy, Naming, etc. and the more principles brought to bear the greater chance of success / greater effect on the world sort of like Ars Magica's variable spontaneous magic or the magic from the oWoD Mage.

I'm struggling to see how this is different from a skill-based system where some of the skills represent "how magic works" as opposed to "how to hit someone with a club".

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I find it a decent idea where the devil lies in the implementation

....

I'm struggling to see how this is different from a skill-based system where some of the skills represent "how magic works" as opposed to "how to hit someone with a club".

Implementation would definitely take some re-envisioning or careful effort. I haven't even thought that far--it's just the core idea that has me pretty excited.

As far as the distinction, it's basically that in your typical skill-based magic system, Bob the Fighter can't make an untrained Conjuration roll. What I'm envisioning is a paradigm in which he can.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I've always believed that RPG systems that don't use different mechanics for spellcasting and 'mundane' skills are more 'elegant', at least from an academic viewpoint.
One example is DSA (Das Schwarze Auge, aka The Dark Eye). Unfortunately, the DSA designers then botched it and created a combat system that is different from the normal skill system...

Another solution can be found in the Earthdawn RPG. It assumes that every player character is an adept, and thus infused with magic. All of their 'skills' (called talents in ED) are magical, allowing them to transcend non-adepts, no matter what they do, be it crafting items, using social skills, or casting spells. It also offers a nice explanation how they can improve their skills so fast, compared to npcs. It's actually possible for adepts to learn non-magical versions of skills, but it's hard work, and rarely worth the effort.

 

[pemerton]

There are a number of people who sometimes get a bit frustrated by the manner in which many game systems separate magical abilities from non-magical abilities

<snip>

the most common way of handling the imbalance for those who see it as undesirable is to basically make non-magical "spells" to allow warrior types and mage types to get on the same page with their mechanical implementation (and perhaps balance).

Just an in-passing observation here: I think it's interesting that you identify a discrete rules element (with, say, a targetting line and an effect line) as a spell. D&D's footprint is very pervasive!

Rather than requiring some special power/maneuvers/ability to use certain types of abilities, we reduce all abilities to normal interaction with the natural laws of the world.

You basically define a list of magical laws customized for the system (fire = passion, flowers = life, water = change, meditation for empowerment, incantations for creation, etc) and then anyone can interact with them as a sort of technology.

<snip>

Just as anyone can pick up a club and hit someone, or try their hand at a bit of cloth mending, anyone could manipulate the magical laws of the world to get effects, and it would follow similar rules as anything else.

So for instance, let's say that "the power of names" is something in the magical laws. If you know someone's true name, and you have a physical piece of them (hair, nail clippings, blood), any magical act aimed at them is more powerful. Let's say that fire, roses, and some sort of incense are supposed to combine to have mystically romantic properties. So if a character knows that (and not everyone would, but it could be fairly easy to find if desired), they can gather the physical elements, and burn them in a fire while speaking the true names of two people--to attempt a love spell on them.

<snip>

If someone without any skills can hit someone with a club or sew up a hole in their shirt, they can do this also (perhaps a better example might be forging someone's handwriting, as you'd probably need to see their handwriting and have specific materials to make a decent attempt, but anyone could try it).

Mike Mearls wrote up a system a bit like this for Arcana Unearthed - a system of rituals which anyone could perform, to get modest buffs, if they used the right ingredients (and knew what to do with them).

I'm also pretty sure that Burning Wheel has a variant magic system somewhat along these lines in the Magic Burner (and so recently reprinted in the Codex).

And arguably RuneQuest is like this: anyone can learn a spell by beating up an appropriate spirit and getting it to teach the spell in question.

One issue is cataloguing the effects. Mearls wrote a list, and RQ has a list of spells. If I'm remembering correctly, BW assimilates the magical effects to what can be achieved with ordinary skills, and thereby aims at a greater degree of open-endedness.

it's basically that in your typical skill-based magic system, Bob the Fighter can't make an untrained Conjuration roll. What I'm envisioning is a paradigm in which he can.

I think the focus on skill-based resolution might be a red herring. The issue of access/capability seems more important. But as the Mearls/UA example and the RQ example show, you can have this independently of a skill system. In UA, as best I recall, it is just about learning the ritual and having the right ingredients (I don't think it's gated behind a feat). And in RQ, it's about defeating the spirit in spirit combat to force it to teach you the spell.

(4e's legendary and divine boons also approximate to this in a way. In the system of PC building, they occupy the same space as magic items, and reflect special training, special knowledge or special gifts, and are not gated in any way other than the general rules around treasure parcels. A game - like 5e - that dispenses with treasure parcels as a system and just relies on the GM to manage stuff from time to time could just define a whole lot of boons and let the players have their PCs do whatever is necessary - eg collect the right ingredients - to enliven them.)

 

[Nagol]

Implementation would definitely take some re-envisioning or careful effort. I haven't even thought that far--it's just the core idea that has me pretty excited.

As far as the distinction, it's basically that in your typical skill-based magic system, Bob the Fighter can't make an untrained Conjuration roll. What I'm envisioning is a paradigm in which he can.

OK, so basically a skill-based system with magic as everyman (can be used untrained) skills the same as weapon use,

You'll probably want to limit the number of potential magic skills so a "professional" magic user role is possible.

Like any magic system, the largest part will be working out what magic can and cannot do, what power levels are possible and how difficult each is to achieve, and what mechanics match the expectations.

 

[fuindordm]

I think it's totally feasible and an interesting idea. You're absolutely right that there is a deep asymmetry between the martial and magic classes. This is not necessarily a problem. It brings the advantage of allowing for two very distinct styles of resource management among PCs and hence different game experiences for the players. However, the idea of a setting where anyone can try to cast a spell is appealing.

If I were to try to implement it in D&D, I would pick ONE of the arcane classes as the basis for "how everyday magic works", then perhaps allow one more arcane class to exist for special cases.

For example, let's say you pick Wizard. Spells exist as part of natural law, they can't be modified on the fly. Anyone is capable of learning the formulas and gestures, and they don't need to understand what they mean or how they work. Everyone has one 1st-level spell slot just by virtue of being alive. Everyone gets to increase spell slots as they go up in level, at the 1/3 rate.

So spells are carefully hoarded by those who know them, as in the Dying Earth books--there are probably a couple of dozen that are commonly known, and perhaps cantrips are also traded and learned. But most of the spells that exist are secrets known only to a few.

If the party defeats a wizard, anyone can read their spellbook, and with an appropriate Int check try to learn the spells. A fighter with an Int of 8 probably won't bother to try.

Essentially, you've taken one of the features of the Wizard class (learn any spell encountered) and given it to everyone. Wizards aren't known for improvising spells, so that's not part of the "Laws of Common Magic". So all the advantages a wizard gets are still pretty sweet: fast spell slot progression, guaranteed new spells every level, special abilities, and so on.

What's to prevent a wizard from teaching another party member all their spells? There are mundane reasons: niche protection, professional jealousy, why bother if the wizard is there casting the spells anyway? Maybe you feel the need to impose more setting-specific reasons: magic taints your soul, or brings persecution.

But in the kind of world you're describing, in a high-level party the wizard should be able to teach everyone in the party how to use the Fly spell, and they can all use their 3rd level spell slot (which the fighter gets at 15th level) to cast it. It's a consequence of the world-building, and it would be pretty cool in its own way. Another consequence is that while 1st-level spells will be pretty common, anything higher level than that will still be rare because almost no one will have a spell slot that can make it work.

And if you want a world where people can modify spells on the fly and/or it runs in families, you could start with the sorcerer as the base class for how magic works. If you want a world where people have to bargain for power, start with the warlock.

A world where people can improvise spells based on a few well-known magical rules is more challenging--you'll probably have to write a subsystem for that, since D&D just doesn't work that way, or use a different RPG. In D&D, you could write a smaller subsystem that only deals with cantrips and first-level spells first, and see how it works out. For example, after the player describes what they want to do (without mechanics) and which magical laws they are using to create the spell, you assign a DC for their Arcana skill roll based on the laws of sympathy and contagion (e.g., DC 10 for an attack spell if you have a hair from the target's head, DC 15 otherwise...) and apply an appropriate cantrip-level or first-level effect from the spell list depending on how well they roll.

Good luck!
Ben

 

[Celebrim]

At best, you'll end up with a world of ubiquitous magic, of the 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' sort.

What I think you'll find if you try to implement this, is that early on in party's career, the distinction between characters won't be well defined. Just as a 1st level wizard doesn't have a lot of magic, but isn't necessarily so much worse poking things with a staff than the burly 1st level fighter with a sword, that he's completely useless in combat, your initial party will have someone that's a bit better at the magic, and maybe someone who is a bit better at swinging the sword - but both could presumably cooperate together in the same endeavors. In essence a 1st level wizard is a 'untrained' at swinging a club, but the sort of problems he faces don't require significant skill so he can attempt them. Likewise, the 1st level fighter is untrained at conjuration or evocation or essence channeling, but the sort of problems he faces don't require significant skill so he can attempt them and only be 20 or 30% less likely to succeed than his sorcerous counterpart. Each will have only a few options the other doesn't.

But if the characters develop at all, if they increase in ability, then you'll quickly run into situations were the magic-y character can do things and face magic-y challenges the choppy sword swinger can't, and vica versa. They'll be operating in different areas. It will be pointless for the fighter to waste time at essence channeling given his much greater process with sword swinging. It will be pointless for wizard to keep trying to poke things with his staff using mundane martial effort, when his conjuration ability is now extraordinary. Each will have many options the other doesn't.

Even more to the point, most efforts don't require more than one character. Combat is central to most RPG narratives because combat is a definitive 'team sport'. But most problems aren't solved by a joint effort, but by picking the most suited person to the particular job. A complex job might require completing several different tasks in succession, and the group may pick several different persons to perform the job, but you generally won't see people working on the same task at the same time. Rather, the most charismatic character will handle the diplomatic task. The most technologically savvy character will handle creating and manipulating objects. The most skillful player will handle those situations that require displaying a particular skill. Think of a kitchen and working to prepare a great meal. Several people can work together, but if you have no skill at all in cooking, you're better off washing dishes. Your efforts - even those loosely under the direction of the chef - won't improve the meal, but worsen it (to say nothing of how they detract the chef). The same sort of problem will ultimately plague a skill system where magic is just another untrained skill. When is the last time in your gaming the party collectively faced a problem, and you resorted to the 'untrained skill' of the least competent member of the party to resolve that problem?

There is also I think fundamentally a misconception in your thinking. Magic doesn't usually rely on 'exception based design' out of inelegant thinking on the part of the designer. Designers over the years haven't gravitated to exception based design out of a fundamental error in their thinking. The reason for 'exception based design' is that the most fundamental question when dealing with magic is always, "What can't magic do?" Generally speaking, magic is a term that covers making reality obey your will. Novelists and other non-interactive storytellers deal with this by limiting magic to what is useful to the plot, but in interactive fiction this doesn't really work because everyone has forgone explicit control of the plot and is sharing the story through the medium of the rules. (It doesn't work that great in fiction either, but that's another topic, albeit one we'll have to address depending on how you decide to concretely implement your idea.)

Exception based design is the most elegant answer to the question, "What can't magic do?", because it reverses the question and turns it from an unmanageable seemingly infinite list and answers, "Magic can only do X, and cannot do anything not explicitly defined in X." Exception based design makes magic manageable in a game.

Opening up magic as physics to be interacted with by everyone even untrained won't change that in the slightest. What can't an untrained wizard do?