Designing holistic versus gamist magic systems?

I think the phonemonen is due to rarity.

If your PC wizard was the only person anyone encountered with magical powers then I think it feels magical. By the time the whole party and every major city and a good portion of your enemies are slinging spells then it just doesn't have that feeling.

The Net Wizard's Handbook classifies magic along two axes: control and frequency. I've attached it for reference since it is a world building aid. Anyway, a lot of the arguments here seem to be focusing on control and frequency. I prefer to focus on the aesthetic of the magic. The arguments offered by the "breaking out..." article may apply to several points on the control and frequency axes, so I would prefer to avoid confusing them. (On a possibly related note, I found an article series called "building better magic systems" that might be useful here too.)

To address the article points with some examples in gaming, in very brief:

I haven't seen #1 addressed much, if at all. Again, this sort of thing could easily become unwieldy so I can easily understand why. Free form magic systems like Mage get close, but in that case it's probably more to do with the basic rules including modifiers for all sorts of environment variables. Some editions of D&D had other planes affecting the usability of magic based on descriptors, but this wasn't applied elsewhere. Warhammer 40,000 has its "machine spirits" (animism applied to technology) that cause all sorts of problems if not properly cared for (and figuring out the proper care involves a lot of trial and error).

#2 is probably the one that I'm most focused on, since it's probably the single most pervasive assumption in magic systems I've seen and popular media about magicians like Once Upon A Time and The Magicians (where the loss of magic is a recurring plot point). I've seen #2 addressed, at least conceptually if not in practice, by the RPG Nephilim. The rulebook literally states "science is a lie" and explains that the world runs on elemental magical fields. When the characters perform "magic," it is actually the applied knowledge of manipulating the universe. Hence, they call it "occult science" instead because it is a science and the real science that reality runs on. Even a kind of antimagic is provided in the form of the toxic element of orichalcum. This method, explaining the real physical laws from first principles, could be used for fantasy fiction in general.

Take the technobabble in scifi. Although it is essentially magic and extremely contrived magic too, it isn't separate from the natural world. I'd like to use that as a basis for a magic system, except dressed up as what we the audience imagine as magic rather than super-science. For example, when Doctor Crusher is healing injuries with her magic technology, it is implied that her tech builds on our accumulated centuries of medical knowledge rather than being a magic black box that heals injuries just because as in typical fantasy. This is important from a world building perspective because if, say, magical and mundane healing operated on completely separate paradigms then you would get issues like Chronicles of Everfall highlighting that a dependence on magical healing means that mundane healing is far less advanced compared to other disciplines of the time.

I've seen #3 addressed somewhat in the RPG Mythras, which includes a "folk magic" system to emulate the sort of magic performed by laypeople in myth, fairytale and other pre-modern stories. Such as tarot cards, praying to hearth spirits, the evil eye, etc. As said by others, it's already present to a degree whenever a game includes environmental magical events that occur outside the PCs control because of GM fiat. This assumption really fascinates me, because even in modern times many people still believe in paranormal phenomena and perform religious rituals (which don't follow D&D logic). How does the connection to magic escape most authors?

#4 is mostly a problem with D&D-esque games. Placing limitations on magic is useful to keep players from spamming it all the time or otherwise breaking the game, so I can excuse that. Magic coming with a price, like everything else in life, is a really useful and thematic storytelling tool. Where this becomes a problem is, as the article attests, when it's used as a crutch to address the martial/caster disparity. I've this addressed in alternate magic/martial systems like Path of War and Spheres of Power, which aim to rebalance martials and casters to play well together. On the other hand, you could boost martials by giving them the ability to channel ki a la East Asian fantasy.

#5 is addressed quite commonly in the form of things like alignment or bonuses for sympathy/contagion. In fact, there's no shortage of books written specifically to provide advice for adjudicating morality and in more detail than simplistic alignment. But, as the article attests, there are often flaws in such implementations like temptations not being tempting or complex moral issues being oversimplified. I don't think this could be governed well by rules (given how complicated morality is in real life) and would need to be judged by the GM in every case.

I don't think I've yet found a magic system that addresses all of these points simultaneously, but I might just not know enough. However, these do interest me from a writing perspective. Even if I can't find an easy way to apply them in a gaming context, they might be useful for writing fantasy fiction that feels fresh and original. What do you think?

EDIT: The BRP supplement Enlightened Magic includes sorcery and alchemy rules based on real world occultism. Real world occultism and obsolete scientific theories might be a useful topic to research when developing magic systems.

I think that it's a bad idea to try to chase down real world occultism as a solution to the problem, both from a perspective of what you will accomplish and from an economic perspective of making the system saleable. It would also I think directly contradict your stated desire to have "writing for fantasy fiction that feels fresh and original". Nothing feels staler and more trite than the Hermetic Qabalah.

I also don't find the article a particularly compelling starting point, as I said I found it confused and sometimes contradictory.

I think the important points would look something more like:

1) Things can go wrong.
2) Not everything is under the spellcaster's control. That is they can go wrong (or right) for reasons other than the spellcaster's performance.
3) There is a sense of depth to the magic of the setting. And in particular the mechanics of magic feel tied to the setting.
4) The setting is pervasively and spontaneously magical.

Where I typically see attempts to address these issues go wrong, is for example when implementing a system for "things can go wrong", things go wrong in a purely random manner that isn't proportional to the sort of magic that is employed. So for example I've seen random tables that regardless of the level of spell being cast, the result could be a potential campaign altering catastrophe of global implications. That's not sensible either as a game or a setting, first because it means that there is no balance and secondly because if that was a potential result then it should have happened long before when some NPC was messing with simple magic.

Likewise, D&D magic typically is viewed through either a gamist paradigm (it works this way for game balance) or else sometimes a narrativist paradigm (in setting magic may work by a completely different paradigm but regardless the mechanics replicates the rhythms of magic in fantasy narratives). But I'm often surprised by the fact that most players of D&D don't seem to have explained why D&D magic works the way it does from an in world perspective or worse even believe that it can't be explained and is solely a gamist construct, and that if we were going to make magic realistic we'd have to use a different system. But you can go a long way toward making D&D magic feel magical just by explaining it in such a way that mentally you aren't assuming that it works like magic in 'Order of the Stick' by Rich Burlew (and for that matter, despite all the 4th wall breaking, Rich does a great job of creating a deeply magical world).

BoxCrayonTales said:

Anyway, a lot of the arguments here seem to be focusing on control and frequency. ... Placing limitations on magic is useful to keep players from spamming it all the time or otherwise breaking the game, so I can excuse that. Magic coming with a price, like everything else in life, is a really useful and thematic storytelling tool. Where this becomes a problem is, as the article attests, when it's used as a crutch to address the martial/caster disparity.

Click to expand...

Celebrim said:

...
Likewise, D&D magic typically is viewed through either a gamist paradigm (it works this way for game balance) or else sometimes a narrativist paradigm (in setting magic may work by a completely different paradigm but regardless the mechanics replicates the rhythms of magic in fantasy narratives)...But you can go a long way toward making D&D magic feel magical just by explaining it in such a way that mentally you aren't assuming that it works like magic in 'Order of the Stick' by Rich Burlew

Click to expand...

It seems like we sometimes grapple with a concern that the requirements of fitting magic into a game system, at least, one where all the participants won't have equal access to magic, requires compromising the vast sweep of what magic seems able to do across the various sources of inspiration.

It might be more helpful to look at what magic in the source material actually allows any one given individual 'hero' (or supporting cast, or even villains) to /do/. Not hypothetically, not according to exposition, but what that one character actually accomplishes with magic, "on screen," in the course of the story.

Looking at D&D's magic system vs LotR that way, for instance, resulted in the famous "Gandalf was a 5th Level Magic-User" - though, really, a 5th level magic-user would probably still have done some stuff Gandalf never seemed to get around to.

Tony Vargas said:

Not hypothetically, not according to exposition, but what that one character actually accomplishes with magic, "on screen," in the course of the story.

Looking at D&D's magic system vs LotR that way, for instance, resulted in the famous "Gandalf was a 5th Level Magic-User" - though, really, a 5th level magic-user would probably still have done some stuff Gandalf never seemed to get around to.

Click to expand...

It's very clear that magic in LotR doesn't obey the principles of the Vancian inspired magic of D&D, and it is a stretch to try to force those principles to apply to Gandalf. But, the really interesting thing is that even though the principles D&D magic presumably works on don't apply to the LotR, Vancian magic with spell slots tends to create in practice the same frequency and diversity of magic observed in the story. Gandalf may not be observed memorizing spells or carrying spell books or using material components or doing a lot of the things we'd expect a Vancian caster to do, but neither does he use magic all the time, nor use the same spell in the same situations, and he does seem at times to run out of magic. This suggests not only limited access and a need to horde magic against emergency, but also that at different times he has access to different magic. Gandalf might not actually have been a 5th level Magic-User, but very few other game systems replicate the actions of the story well. In the story Gandalf hides his magic because he's charged by the Valar not to meet might with might, but from the perspective of the reader this ambiguous idea might as well be implemented behind the scenes with Vancian spell slots. Gandalf's lack of freedom to do magic regardless of the narrative reason conforms to the same lack of freedom a player is given to perform magic for balance reasons.

Of course, if we want to make magic feel numinous and well magical, I don't think this explanation however satisfying it may be is sufficient. Plenty of tables use the system either because that's what the rules are and whether they like it or not, it's what they got, or else in understanding of why it works this way from a game and narrative perspective, but believing that the system is solely an artifact of that game balance and that it doesn't make sense. And further, they believe that this not making sense is tied to the fact that it is a game mechanic, and not to the mysterious nature of magic. When I was a kid I always used to hear the complaint that spell points or mana systems would be much more "realistic", and it was only as I got older that I started to wonder how you could know whether a system for something that doesn't really exist was realistic. I think the real issue is not "realism" but suspension of disbelief.

So for my point #3 above, "There is a sense of depth to the magic of the setting. And in particular the mechanics of magic feel tied to the setting.", I think the first thing you have to tackle is getting the players to suspend disbelief, and to do that you have to explain how magic works in the setting in a way that makes a good deal of sense.

In D&D the fundamental precept of magic is that it's impossible for a human to use magic in a short period of time as a mere act of will. Humans aren't magical enough to do that, or that is to say they don't have as strong of connection to the rest of reality as that. Whereas a magical being might be bound to the skein of reality by many strong cables, for a human if they have the talent at all, they find it is like drawing on a fish with a very thin line. Most human magic users therefore come up with an agreement with some more powerful magical being and have that being grant or perform the spell on their behalf, so that the magical being rather than the human does most of the work. That's what's known as divine magic. A few human magic users aren't fully human and have a more innate connection to magic than normal humans may have. These are sorcerers. For humans that wish to perform their own magic without having a magical heritage, they must do the following:

a) Slowly train up their ability to perform magic, much as an athlete must slowly train up their body. Rush it too fast and you risk dangerous side effects and strain on your mind and body, which might cripple or permanently destroy your ability to do magic. Over the years wizards have come up with a regimented program for slowly training up the necessary magical 'muscles' in a way that minimizes risk of crippling injury, and most wizards wisely hold pretty closely to this program of study though the more gifted may risk slightly more effort.
b) Slowly prepare spells over the course of many minutes. When a Wizard 'memorizes' a spell, he's doing much more than just carefully memorizes the gestures and words necessary to complete a spell - he's preparing the spell to reach that point in the first place. Each spell a Wizard 'memorizes' must be carefully constructed in the minutes that is spent memorizing it so that it is almost but not quite ready to cast. Since human wizards can only lift very small loads at a time, they have to construct the equivalent of magical machinery - pulleys and levers that allow the wizard to leverage forces that would otherwise break their minds and bodies. Constructing these magical machines by slow labor is the work of several minutes for each spell that the wizard wishes to cast, as the wizard slowly drags into place the fabric of reality into the structure needed to work the magic. Spells are bits of known technology which wizards have discovered and devised over the years by long research, which have the unique property that you can perform most of the work ahead of the time and then leave the magic stored in a state where it's almost ready to work and requires only a comparatively simple set of directions to complete and target the spell.
c) When a wizard completes a spell, it's not just that the instructions for creating the spell are wiped from their mind, but the physical machine that they created is wiped from their mind and because humans are so comparatively unmagical beings, they can't simply create new ones. They used up all the strength that they had save the little necessary to cast the spell when they prepared the spells in the morning. The part of their being that is needed to cast magic is at this point as tired as the body of one that just ran a long distance race. They are flagged out. The part of their being that cast spells is not a part of their being most people are even aware exists, like a muscle so little used that no thought is given to it unless you strain it or train it. And tiring that part of their being in no fashion tires the muscles in their legs or arms. The fatigue they experience is not a fatigue that ordinary people every experience or ever notice experiencing, but something you can only understand if you like the wizard have strained to use that part of your being. This is why a wizard who was careful about preparing and using magic can be out of magical strength while still able to perform physical activity.
d) Different schools of magic exist which draw on different power sources and different targets for the energy they create. Evocation and Conjuration magic for example relies on the fact that observable universe is not all that exists, but instead the observable universe is embedded in a larger universe which is thinly separated from or own and to which doors can be constructed by those with the skill. Transmutation magic particularly relies on a fact all human magic relies on, that universe was created through words and that there is a close relationship between the name of a thing and the thing itself, so that the act of giving a name to something by a physical law changes it. By employing snippets of the secret language by which the universe was made, the transmuter can temporarily or permanently alter the nature of things around him. Enchantment magic relies on the fact that minds are delicate and most are easily swayed by comparatively small amounts of force, while Illusion magic combines this observation with some of the skills of transmutation and conjuration to alter perception and ultimately reality.

If you look at that explanation for how magic works, you realize that there are huge gaps in the existing rules regarding magic. There are tons of things about the nature of reality and about the nature of magic that are implied by that explanation for which we have no mechanics. Your typical hedge mage practicing magic as a tradesman on behalf of a small community may never even think about the gaps and confine themselves to the rituals they were taught without ever thinking about or understanding how they work, but it ought to be possible for a PC to break out of this paradigm and explore the magical reality in a fuller way. My belief is if the mechanics for that fuller magical reality existed, then D&D magic would feel magical.

BoxCrayonTales said:

I haven't seen #1 addressed much, if at all. Again, this sort of thing could easily become unwieldy so I can easily understand why. Free form magic systems like Mage get close, but in that case it's probably more to do with the basic rules including modifiers for all sorts of environment variables. Some editions of D&D had other planes affecting the usability of magic based on descriptors, but this wasn't applied elsewhere. Warhammer 40,000 has its "machine spirits" (animism applied to technology) that cause all sorts of problems if not properly cared for (and figuring out the proper care involves a lot of trial and error).

#2 is probably the one that I'm most focused on, since it's probably the single most pervasive assumption in magic systems I've seen and popular media about magicians like Once Upon A Time and The Magicians (where the loss of magic is a recurring plot point). I've seen #2 addressed, at least conceptually if not in practice, by the RPG Nephilim. The rulebook literally states "science is a lie" and explains that the world runs on elemental magical fields. When the characters perform "magic," it is actually the applied knowledge of manipulating the universe. Hence, they call it "occult science" instead because it is a science and the real science that reality runs on. Even a kind of antimagic is provided in the form of the toxic element of orichalcum. This method, explaining the real physical laws from first principles, could be used for fantasy fiction in general.

I've seen #3 addressed somewhat in the RPG Mythras, which includes a "folk magic" system to emulate the sort of magic performed by laypeople in myth, fairytale and other pre-modern stories. Such as tarot cards, praying to hearth spirits, the evil eye, etc. As said by others, it's already present to a degree whenever a game includes environmental magical events that occur outside the PCs control because of GM fiat. This assumption really fascinates me, because even in modern times many people still believe in paranormal phenomena and perform religious rituals (which don't follow D&D logic). How does the connection to magic escape most authors?

#4 is mostly a problem with D&D-esque games. Placing limitations on magic is useful to keep players from spamming it all the time or otherwise breaking the game, so I can excuse that. Magic coming with a price, like everything else in life, is a really useful and thematic storytelling tool. Where this becomes a problem is, as the article attests, when it's used as a crutch to address the martial/caster disparity. I've this addressed in alternate magic/martial systems like Path of War and Spheres of Power, which aim to rebalance martials and casters to play well together. On the other hand, you could boost martials by giving them the ability to channel ki a la East Asian fantasy.

#5 is addressed quite commonly in the form of things like alignment or bonuses for sympathy/contagion. In fact, there's no shortage of books written specifically to provide advice for adjudicating morality and in more detail than simplistic alignment. But, as the article attests, there are often flaws in such implementations like temptations not being tempting or complex moral issues being oversimplified. I don't think this could be governed well by rules (given how complicated morality is in real life) and would need to be judged by the GM in every case.

I don't think I've yet found a magic system that addresses all of these points simultaneously, but I might just not know enough. However, these do interest me from a writing perspective. Even if I can't find an easy way to apply them in a gaming context, they might be useful for writing fantasy fiction that feels fresh and original. What do you think?

Click to expand...

https://modos-rpg.obsidianportal.com/wikis/magic-module

Try this magic system. It's easy - just 13 rules. Briefly, it works like this: a character learns a Power by dedicating a skill point to it. Using the power requires a contest (a check/roll) that is greater than zero, and the character takes Damage (usually Metaphysical) to create the Effect.

Relating to the five points:

1) Because magic use requires a roll from the PC, the GM has direct control (through the application of Difficulty bonuses or penalties) over a spell's chance of success. The GM can design that magic difficulty around any campaign-appropriate concept - humors, unknown PC traits, etc. - and PCs learn what works and what doesn't work by attempting to cast and by following the campaign trail.

2) The Modos RPG table includes a couple of categories that allow magic to be part of the real world: Impossible and Divine. When a contest is needed, the GM rolls an opposing contest with a Difficulty bonus added from one of the Difficulty categories, based on what an average person in the campaign could do. So if someone tries something Impossible for the average person, like convincing an animal to run in the direction of the nearest water source, that PC's contest needs to beat the GM's contest with a +12 (impossible) bonus. Or if a PC wanted to craft a "magically" hard sword with his bare hands (impossible), that would burst into flame on command (divine), he would need to beat the GM's contest +16 (divine).

No spells are needed for this style of magic - just really high contest results.

3) I'm pretty sure that any game with Rule Zero addresses this issue.

4) The standard rules allow magic-power to be very random, because the cost of each power is partially determined by a d8. Spending too much metaphysical health on powers renders a magic user Catatonic, which effectively removes a character from play until the player and GM agree on how the character returns to play. Returning to play can be as simple as beating the GM's contest with a mental (concentration) contest. The GM might allow the PC to continue casting spells, but the new cost is Mental Damage instead of Metaphysical. Or using too much magic means the PC has offended the spirits of the land, and the PC gains a new Flaw of being followed around by one of the offended spirits.

5) Back to point 1 - the GM controls Difficulty, and the PC needs to beat the GM's result. If the PC is not morally pure, or has never met a spell's target before, the GM adds more Difficulty. If the cleric is casting spells of a type, and usage, approved by her god: +4 to the casting contest. For any other spell: -4.

No, the game doesn't contain a treatise on how to make magic un-scientific. In a sense, that would be counter-productive, because each rule you write on the topic would seem to make magic more scientific. The other important point here is that any magic system that requires PCs to roll, and is backed by Rule Zero, can accomplish a lot of John H Kim's magic goals.