Worlds of Design: The Rules of Magic

Hard magic systems have clear rules about how they work; they are predictable. Soft magic has no clear “system” and tends to lack any kind of connection between one spell and another—more or less random, certainly chaotic.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

“There are only patterns, patterns on top of patterns, patterns that affect other patterns. Patterns hidden by patterns. Patterns within patterns. If you watch close, history does nothing but repeat itself. What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense.”—Chuck Palahniuk

Types of Magic​

I only learned a few years ago, while talking with a friend, about the terms “hard” and “soft” magic systems. I knew the idea, of course. You could say that hard systems emphasize the natural and the known, while soft systems emphasize the supernatural and the mysterious/fantastical. But I don’t think that is always true, just a strong tendency.

I recall well-known sci-fi and fantasy author Brandon Sanderson sharing at a Gen Con panel that a fiction writer can’t use the magic system as an important part of the plot unless that magic system has clear rules—in effect, a hard magic system. He evidently enjoys devising such systems.

Hard Magic Systems in Your Campaign​

If you’re going to have a magic system in a game then the rules must be known (to the GM, at least) in order for the players to play. Magic systems in games tend naturally toward the “hard” side because the system has to be codified and explained in the rules. But they don’t necessarily need to be predictable. There can be chaotically random elements.

“Wild” spell casters is a soft system more or less. If you’re not familiar with wild spell casters, after you cast a spell, you roll on a table to see what actually happens. An extreme example of this would be the wand of wonder or wild mages from Dungeons & Dragons. When the wild caster is low-level and casts a high-level spell then it’s likely to really go wrong, while if a high level wild one casts a low-level spell it’s much more likely to behave itself.

World builders are going to tend toward hard systems, I think, assuming they record the results of their world-building rather than keep it all in their head.

Soft Magic Systems in Your Campaign​

For novelists and movie makers, a soft magic system is clearly more useful than hard because you can make it do anything you want to suit the current situation. (I’m especially reminded of Glen Cook’s classic “Black Company” series, where magic is often used.) Moreover, you’re quite unlikely to see a hard system in a movie because there’s not time for exposition in the movie to explain how the system works.

If you want a soft system in a D&D-style game, what can you do beyond something like the wand of wonder dice table with modifications for caster power and spell difficulty? One key is unpredictability. Maybe the addition of a deck of cards of side effects could help.

Perhaps the best way to use a soft system are story-based games, where spellcasting rules are less codified. Alternately, the GM could create their own magic system and reveal how the system works in-game with checks and die rolls. That’s a lot of prework and requires no small amount of GM planning and player buy-in to the concept beforehand.

Your turn: What soft systems of magic have you used in your campaign?

 

[CapnZapp]

The reason "hard magic" is used by game publishers like WotC is because they are popular among gamers - they allow players to master systems, and they allow characters to make predictably clever choices.

However, it basically turns magic from wonder to tool. Predictability is scientific: cause and effect; do-this get-that.

Magic should not be like that - magic should always retain a degree of unpredictability and danger.

But some proponents of soft(ish) magic systems forget one key difference between a role-playing game and movies/literature - while the magic system can - inside the world - well be described as "soft" (unpredictable, governed by few rules) the actual application is not - the writer always chooses an effect that is favorable to the story!

This is why I feel the categorization isn't as useful as this article makes it out to be.

Every rpg player wants to feel useful and in control. You can't do that if your Fireball is as likely to land on your foes as on your friends. Or if you're as likely to produce a brightly-colored flower as you are to provide desperately needed healing.

It would be more worthwhile, I think, to focus on two types of hard magic systems (in interactive games like ttrpgs):
a) systems where the character is in control (say D&D - Efzaban casts Magic Missile and arrows of force kill the goblins with unerring precision, every time)
b) systems where the player (or I guess the DM) is in control (Efzaban might invoke chaotic, uncontrolled, random, magics, but the player still gets to choose an effect that helps out the group or trusts the DM to provide one)

 

[GMMichael]

If you want a soft system in a D&D-style game, what can you do beyond something like the wand of wonder dice table with modifications for caster power and spell difficulty? One key is unpredictability. Maybe the addition of a deck of cards of side effects could help.

One thing to try would be, as GM, creating hidden house rules that affect the hard system that PCs use. For example, a house rule might be "magic comes from the earth, so a caster's feet must be rooted for a minute before casting a spell." Then the GM could drop hints, or require rolls, to indicate to the player how well that caster's next spell would execute. . .

"The field around you felt strong moments ago, but right now, you barely feel the tingle in your fingertips."

Viola, hardsoft magic.

Closer to @CapnZapp 's point (?), magic that has hard rules but is player-defined in-game creates mystery for everyone but the spellcaster. Suppose a spell description says

. . . magic-user's choice of vermin appear and cause d4 physical damage to each target in close range.

The spell's effect is defined, rules-wise, but the player chooses vermin type, method of damaging, targets, and where/how far the spell occurs.

 

[schneeland]

Similar to @CapnZapp, I'm not sure if "hard" and "soft" is really helping a lot when thinking about magic systems for TTRPGs, at least not as the single axis of design. Based on games I played or read, I would intuitively think about the following dimensions:

1. Fixed effect vs. flexible framework: where in D&D the spell effect is basically fixed (with some creative uses allowed depending on the GM), other games like Ars Magica offer flexible frameworks to create magical effects
2. Codified rule/effect vs. ad hoc negotiation: while larger, traditional games often have most of the effect fixed in the rules (even if that includes some randomness), other games allow provide just rough guidelines on what magic can achieve and leave the rest to agreement at the table (e.g. in Barbarians of Lemuria spells are judged by how easy the effect would be to achieve without magic)
3. Risk&reward vs. fixed resource cost: e.g. in Shadowrun you suffer an amount of damage (drain) based on the force level of your spell, so you might take out more enemies with a more powerful spell, but also yourself; with spell slot or spell point systems you basically always get your spell out (though an opponent might resist the effect) at a fixed cost. In some systems, the risk/cost might also come in the form of corruptive effects (e.g. Symbaroum) or spell fumbles (e.g. DCC, Forbidden Lands)

From personal experience I can say that a game where we player's basically knew nothing about how magic worked, did not go well. Basically it left us very directionless and we stopped the campaign after the first arc.

I do agree, though, that magic systems with fixed & codified effects coming at fixed resource costs like the one featured in D&D, definitely do not feel very magical and really more like a big set of (more or less) reliable tools. For that reason, I personally prefer magic in the games mentioned above.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One of my favorite “hard/soft” takes on magic is created by using a HERO System Variable Power Pool. The character has a set-aside reserve of power that defines the magnitude of effects that can be created, but the details of what happens with the pool are defined in the moment of use.

Add in limitations like “Requires a Magic skill roll” (typically 8+, 11+, etc.) or “Fails on roll of 8-/11-, etc.” can give you randomness.

Other limitations or advantages could help you mimic classic variables of magic- “Doesn’t work vs Silver/cold iron/holy symbols”, for instance.

 

[CapnZapp]

Similar to @CapnZapp, I'm not sure if "hard" and "soft" is really helping a lot when thinking about magic systems for TTRPGs, at least not as the single axis of design. Based on games I played or read, I would intuitively think about the following dimensions:

1. Fixed effect vs. flexible framework: where in D&D the spell effect is basically fixed (with some creative uses allowed depending on the GM), other games like Ars Magica offer flexible frameworks to create magical effects
2. Codified rule/effect vs. ad hoc negotiation: while larger, traditional games often have most of the effect fixed in the rules (even if that includes some randomness), other games allow provide just rough guidelines on what magic can achieve and leave the rest to agreement at the table (e.g. in Barbarians of Lemuria spells are judged by how easy the effect would be to achieve without magic)
3. Risk&reward vs. fixed resource cost: e.g. in Shadowrun you suffer an amount of damage (drain) based on the force level of your spell, so you might take out more enemies with a more powerful spell, but also yourself; with spell slot or spell point systems you basically always get your spell out (though an opponent might resist the effect) at a fixed cost. In some systems, the risk/cost might also come in the form of corruptive effects (e.g. Symbaroum) or spell fumbles (e.g. DCC, Forbidden Lands)

From personal experience I can say that a game where we player's basically knew nothing about how magic worked, did not go well. Basically it left us very directionless and we stopped the campaign after the first arc.

I do agree, though, that magic systems with fixed & codified effects coming at fixed resource costs like the one featured in D&D, definitely do not feel very magical and really more like a big set of (more or less) reliable tools. For that reason, I personally prefer magic in the games mentioned above.

Well, we need to analyze the drawbacks as well to understand why the seemingly dry and boring spell systems of D&D remain popular. I mean, just concluding "D&D doesn't feel magical, I don't get why people don't play XYZ instead" isn't really a complete understanding.

One problem with games without rigid limits and stipulations is that the experience of negotiating a reasonable magical effect (reasonable not just within the game world logic, but also reasonable in terms of not unbalanced/overpowered/cheesy/spotlight-hogging when the session is viewed as a game where everyone at the table supposedly gets their chance to shine) might feel fresh at first, but soon you will realize you have just exchanged written rules for unwritten rules.

Instead of playing an edition of Dungeons & Dragons or My Little Pony or whatever, you're now playing Bob the GM or Sue the Keeper. It's altogether far too easy to settle into a groove of what works (what Bob or Sue likes, agrees to, or finds reasonable). It will of course be better than written rules when Bob is a great GM. But it will more often than not result in Sue forgetting to give everybody a fair deal, or Sue letting the most talkative player dominate with his spells, or something else. In short, there's a reason we invented game rules. "Not using rules" just isn't the brilliant new invention proponents sometimes tries to sell it as...

Next, games with "risk" as cost. Besides the examples already mentioned, you have Warhammer's "be seen using magic and you might end up getting burned as a Witch". The problem here is: are you meant to use your magic or not? If magic is the supposed tool the character needs to get by in life, then the player will want to use that tool. Trying to warn him off just isn't sincere. Again, in literature it can work very well to give the protagonist abilities that really are just curses. But ttrpgs are not literature. It's the player, not the script-writer, who is supposed to make decisions!

I much prefer systems where the designers already acknowledge from the start the point of a Wizard character is to cast spells, and then avoids adding systems that might get the character killed simply because it uses the abilities it has been given. (Also see the "it sucks to play a Wizard out of spells resorting to slinging stones so we gave the class cantrips" discussion. A good idea in general just unfortunately taken too far with infinite cantrips).

Again, the problem is trying to solve a player-facing problem using character-facing solutions.

The problem isn't the character using endless magic to dominate play. Mighty wizards obliterating the monstrous hordes is a staple of the genre. The problem is the player using endless magic to dominate play, because the other players feel useless. Again, an out-of-world problem should be solved with an out-of-world solution. Vancian spell slots is perhaps the crudest and simplest such solution. (Also see "mana points" etc) This doesn't mean those solutions are perfect. For one thing, there's no unpredictability. (Also, Vancian slots are stupendously baffling ) But they have the advantage over "use the cool stuff we give you and you might end up one a pyre" solutions.

If you like, consider this post playing the devil's advocate. I just want to nuance the discussion, making it easier to understand why people settle for the supposedly boring and inferior magic systems, and, to really make my point: make it easier to understand what you need to still provide in your supposed "soft" magic system to sell it to actual roleplayers and not just those unfortunate souls that confuse gamesmastering for recounting their personal novellas, where the player characters are just props with limited agency in the GM's dream narrative.

 

[schneeland]

@CapnZapp Maybe that wasn't sufficiently clear, but that last statement was not an assessment that such magic systems are generally/objectively bland - fixed&codified effect+fixed costs has its advantages, and even though I personally don't like it too much, there are apparently enough people who enjoy or at least don't hate it.

For the rest, it seems a bit like you are rejecting the idea of the design axes based on preference for that specific design, moving mostly back to the hard-soft dichotomy, but then reject the idea of soft magic systems in general. So not sure how to follow up from there. Maybe we just disagree too much on the usefulness of design axes as a tool for designing RPG systems.

 

[GMMichael]

Well, we need to analyze the drawbacks as well to understand why the seemingly dry and boring spell systems of D&D remain popular.

Um, perhaps it's because they're dry and boring?

I much prefer systems where the designers already acknowledge from the start the point of a Wizard character is to cast spells, and then avoids adding systems that might get the character killed simply because it uses the abilities it has been given. (Also see the "it sucks to play a Wizard out of spells resorting to slinging stones so we gave the class cantrips" discussion. A good idea in general just unfortunately taken too far with infinite cantrips).

Threatening death seems like a pretty good way to make magic feel...forbidden. It's not like the threat of death doesn't get great mileage elsewhere in RPGs (see bulky combat chapters and manuals full of angry monsters).

Infinite cantrips is something else, though. I'm pretty sure not even Harry Potter can cast a cantrip every minute for eight hours straight. His mouth would go dry from all the cheesy latin-esque magic words. Why can't wizards just use swords? I mean: Gandalf.

The problem isn't the character using endless magic to dominate play. Mighty wizards obliterating the monstrous hordes is a staple of the genre. The problem is the player using endless magic to dominate play, because the other players feel useless. Again, an out-of-world problem should be solved with an out-of-world solution. Vancian spell slots is perhaps the crudest and simplest such solution. (Also see "mana points" etc) . . .

This still seems like a character problem. My barbarian would walk off the battlefield pretty quick - headed for the nearest mead source - if the party wizard revealed that he could obliterate the monstrous horde . . . but anyway. The mana points system that you equate to Vancian slots is actually good way to make a "soft" magic system respectful of player-spotlight. If you have 10 mana points, and your spells each have a fixed cost, sure, you can cast two fireballs, a bless, and a Well At Least I Have One Mana Point useless spell. If you have 10 mana points, and your spells use a variable amount of points, you can definitely cast your fireball and WALIHOMP, but the rest is a mystery - soft.

 

[CapnZapp]

Um, perhaps it's because they're dry and boring?

No comment

Threatening death seems like a pretty good way to make magic feel...forbidden. It's not like the threat of death doesn't get great mileage elsewhere in RPGs (see bulky combat chapters and manuals full of angry monsters).

Again, having all-powerful Wizards need not be a problem in-world (especially in film or literature). The problem at hand is instead an out-of-world problem: that endless spellcasting steals too much spotlight for the Wizard player from the other players (aka the Wizard is "overpowered").

But "making magic feel forbidden" is an in-world problem, and "threatening death" is an in-world solution. We're not threatening the players' lives, we're threatening their characters' lives.

This is a discussion on how to improve game design. The ability to keep in-game and out-of-games issues separate, and being able to identify mismatched problem-solution pairs are skills that leads to better game design.

tl;dr: Good game design solves out-of-world problems with out-of-world solutions.

 

[talien]

I'm reminded of Mage and Fantasy Hero, both systems in which the player "built" their spells instead of choosing from a list.

Thing was, you then just used those formulas repeatedly to cast spells, because I couldn't (and didn't want to) slow the game down by coming up with a spell on the fly.

When I introduced the basics of Mage spellcasting to a new player, she was overwhelmed by the possibilities and just settled on whatever I suggested. Soft systems work much better in novels because the author is controlling everything, and the spell suits the situation. In a game, there are many other factors determining what makes spellcasting "fun" and they're constrained by meta factors like the time it takes to decide on a spell, determine its effects, etc.

I do love the concept, but in practice I think it takes a group that buys into the system, including non-caster players being patient with the casters.