VelvetViolet
Adventurer
So I was discussing the article "breaking out of scientific magic systems" in another thread. The title of the article is misleading, as it isn't about the scientific method or the philosophy of science as it would apply to fictional magic systems. The article describes the contrasts between modern tabletop game magic systems versus magic as described in mythology/folklore/religion and provides suggestions for more closely emulating the folkloric styles of magic. Another article, "Magic systems aren't magic", addresses a similar contrast between magic systems as depicted in mass market fantasy fiction and real world belief systems.
Since the terminology is extremely misleading, I'm going to describe the difference as one of "holistic" versus "gamist" magic systems. What qualifies as "magic" is an out-of-universe distinction made by us the audience: anything that would be impossible in reality is defined as "magic." In a holistic magic system, the fictional universe is built from first principles with magic integrated into it; although people in that setting may be capable of things impossible in reality, in their world such is allowed by their laws of physics and is no more "magic" than technology is in reality. In a gamist magic system, the writers first writes the rules for the mundane world and then tacks on a magic system to let mages cheat the mundane rules as desired. (So whenever magic systems are introduced, they typically compose the bulk of rules.) This is a product of the people writing magic systems growing up in an environment where they are taught about science in school, and then retroactively applying their modern worldview to their readings about magic described in myths and fairytales. But the pre-modern cultures that told these myths and fairytales didn't have a distinction between magic and science!
During the discussion, I encountered this carefully crafted critique of the first article:
I also encountered other critiques, like this reddit thread.
I agreed with the premise of the original article. I wanted to follow the suggestions, but I wanted to see if examples already existed. Yet I can't seem to find magic systems that implement these. The various critiques suggest that this isn't possible and the article is nonsensical.
Is the article's premise a sensible one? How would you go about implementing the magic system it describes? Are there detailed examples published anywhere?
Since the terminology is extremely misleading, I'm going to describe the difference as one of "holistic" versus "gamist" magic systems. What qualifies as "magic" is an out-of-universe distinction made by us the audience: anything that would be impossible in reality is defined as "magic." In a holistic magic system, the fictional universe is built from first principles with magic integrated into it; although people in that setting may be capable of things impossible in reality, in their world such is allowed by their laws of physics and is no more "magic" than technology is in reality. In a gamist magic system, the writers first writes the rules for the mundane world and then tacks on a magic system to let mages cheat the mundane rules as desired. (So whenever magic systems are introduced, they typically compose the bulk of rules.) This is a product of the people writing magic systems growing up in an environment where they are taught about science in school, and then retroactively applying their modern worldview to their readings about magic described in myths and fairytales. But the pre-modern cultures that told these myths and fairytales didn't have a distinction between magic and science!
During the discussion, I encountered this carefully crafted critique of the first article:
Well, at the risk of offending the original author, what I'm suggesting is that the article neither proposes a useful idea nor is actually coherent. Or to put it another way, I do understand exactly what the author is going for, but he doesn't do a great job of explaining or exploring the problem.
Consider if we start systematically replacing the word "magic" in the article with "science". If these two things are really radically different concepts as he suggests, and if his description of magic is coherent then the mangled article where we replace a concept with a supposedly incompatible concept should be nonsense.
Section #1: "Science is a known system and thus non-mysterious" In the first section the author tries to explain that magic shouldn't be a known system and thus non-mysterious, because this makes it too scientific. But the problem is that the assertion that science is a known system and thus non-mysterious as an assertion about the nature of the real known universe and how it works is also false. There are a great many things we do with "science" based on manipulation of the universe where the more you know about how the thing works, the less confident you are in explaining why it works - quantum tunneling for example is something that is definitely science, definitely manipulated, and wholly mysterious. And that turns out to be true of a lot of things.
And, I've already gone into the problem that the sort of suggestions that the article writer goes into aren't particularly workable, nor is it clear even if implemented that it would create the feel that the author is going for, which if I would put a word on it is not merely mysterious but Numinous. The author is frustrated that magic in the game fails to be numinous.
Part #2: "Science is a force separate from Nature" - The author wants to assert that magic ought not be a force separate from the natural world. There are several problems with this assertion, the first of which is that it is not at all clear that his assumption - magic is never involved for things which science can explain - is true or enforced by D&D magic. While there is a very common presumption that if you can explain it, it isn't magic, this would lead us into a lengthy (though perhaps productive) discussion of what magic is or what the word means to the speaker, something Tolkien explicitly asked in his stories. But is asserting that magic is a force separate from nature really asserting anything different than science is a force separate from nature. Both utilize the natural world to act on the natural world, and even if people perceive science as artificial it's still grounded in natural law. So if you assert magic ought to be grounded in the natural law of the magical world, what are you asserting really but that it is an extension of the natural science of that world? I mean, I could see this argument going in exactly the opposite direction, that magic is too much a part of the magical world and doesn't therefore feel unearthly and numinous on that account.
And as with the prior section, there is actually a paucity of ideas in this one and it's not really clear what they would be or how they would work or if even if they could somehow be implemented they'd actually solve the problem. Consider the assertion, "In pre-scientific views, though, crafting of steel is itself a magical process. The hardness of the metal is part of the magical-ness of the sword...In general, RPG magic systems view magic as something ephemeral. Effects are rarely permanent or even long-lasting." But nothing really prevents the crafting of steel from being a magical process, and what would it really mean if it was? As a sort of nod toward this, in my campaign world the phrase "cold forged iron" sometimes used to refer to some magical crafting process simply refers to the 'ordinary' creation of 'ordinary' steel, a material which has magical properties in the world (such as being able to cleave fairies and a variety of other inherently magical beings). But what would it mean if the crafting of steel was a magical process, and if it was a magical process would that make the crafting of steel or steel swords more mysterious and numinous? And consider, he's at the same time he's referring to magic swords, making a claim about magic being something ephemeral. Yet magical swords are not particularly ephemeral in D&D.
I've already dealt with the speaking with animals bit, but we could equally deal with the claims about 'mundane skill'. For every single skill in D&D, there are a number of ranks in that skill where what the character possessing of that skill can do is superhuman and cannot be explained by our ordinary understanding. If you have enough ranks of healing in D&D, you are capable of superhuman feats of healing. If you have enough ranks of climb or jump, you are capable of superhuman physics defying feats of athleticism. What is this if not mundane skill shading off into the magical and nonmundane.
If you could summarize my take on the article, it would be to ask the question, "What does the author really want?" And my answer is, "He doesn't really know, and can't put his finger on it."
Part #3: Science happens as spells from deliberate users - No more true of science in the sense of "what is happening in the physical world" than it is true of magic. While it is true that magic in D&D most often takes the forms of PC or NPC initiated events, the broader category whose absence he bemoans "magical events such as omens, visions, destinies, lucky objects, and miracles. There are also magical places and magical times. Lastly, there is magic of circumstance. For example, if someone dies in certain circumstances he may return as a ghost to haunt his killer. This isn't because the character had the "ghost" magical ability, it just happened because of the circumstances of his death." is very much a part of a D&D fiction and D&D settings. Pick up any number of D&D novels, stories, and adventures and you'll find omens, visions, destinies, miracles, magical places, magical times, and undead arising purely as a result of the circumstances of their death as part of both the backstory of the adventure and the components of the module. All of that magic as plot device stuff hasn't gone away just because characters can cast spells, it's just part of the DM's tool kit of moving stories along.
So again, what does the author want? Does he want a systematic explanation for omens, visions, destinies, miracle, magical places, magical times and so on and so forth? I rather get the impression that that is exactly what he doesn't want and that he thinks systematic explanations are part of the problem.
Further, he makes assertions like: "Many RPGs tend to assume that magic is a professional skill, which is learned in a mage's guild or other organization. However, in myths, the wizard is often a solitary figure whose magic is an inborn talent -- which can be a curse as well as a blessing. The archetype of the wizard is often a mysterious hermit, who shuns and is shunned by society at large." But not only are these two things he contrasts are not incompatible, as it could be true that both only people of inborn talent can become wizards and that magic is a professional skill which can be taught in institutions, but specifically D&D have has never tried to enforce a view of how many people can be wizards. D&D has never really asserted whether only people born with magic can learn magic or whether anyone with sufficient intelligence can be taught it. And as far as that goes, it certainly implies only people born with it can ever be sorcerers. The access that PC's are given to magic in no way determines details of the setting like are complained about.
And I could keep going and going, but the point is if you read the article critically as an attempt to fix a perhaps real problem, my take is that while there may be a real problem the author hasn't really gotten very far in exploring it and doesn't have a real plan to solve it. In fact, often the direction the author seems to be pushing in - such as weaker but more ubiquitous magic in the section on 'mana' is cited by people who switch to such systems as one of the reasons magic no longer feels special and mysterious to them.
I also encountered other critiques, like this reddit thread.
I agreed with the premise of the original article. I wanted to follow the suggestions, but I wanted to see if examples already existed. Yet I can't seem to find magic systems that implement these. The various critiques suggest that this isn't possible and the article is nonsensical.
Is the article's premise a sensible one? How would you go about implementing the magic system it describes? Are there detailed examples published anywhere?