PDA

View Full Version : How to Design Magic?



Conners
2012-10-07, 11:20 PM
Whether you're writing a book, or designing a new rule system--it's important to have magic that makes a kind of sense.


Maybe magic is mysterious, and no one understands it well. That's great! ...Now, can I turn everyone in the castle to stone, or can't I?

Perhaps magic is a well-understood science? Awesome! So... do wizards rule the world? If so, what's the point of playing a fighter?

Perhaps magic is flibble-flobble-flaggle-fligel. ...What the heck? I do not know what wizards are capable of doing, and it seems contradictory. Does this situation mean the heroes are about to die, or is it a cakewalk to cast a spell and be OK?


Someone mentioned Sanderson's First Law, that magic needs to be understandable. How should you give magic rules? How do you test your magic, to see if it's contradictory (is there a list a of questions you can ask yourself?)?

What are your thoughts, on designing magic?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-08, 12:10 AM
Someone mentioned Sanderson's First Law, that magic needs to be understandable.

More accurately, Sanderson's first law is Your ability to solve problems with magic is directly proportional to how well-defined magic is. Which for gaming systems translates to The PC's ability to use magic is directly proportional to how well-defined magic is. You can't have D&D-style wizards in a system where magic is "mysterious."

Totally Guy
2012-10-08, 01:13 AM
The cost is always the most interesting part for me.

It means that you can say "Do I do the spell to get what I want and risk a consequence or is this thing not worth that risk?". If that question isn't being asked then that aspect is not an interesting decision on the part of that character and player.

The worst magic systems for me are the ones where it's a no brainer and you just say "why wouldn't I try to get what I want?" and do it.

Conners
2012-10-08, 01:51 AM
Cost has always been tricky for me to work out. If you just have a mana pool, then the only cost is, "I won't be able to use spells till I rest or drink a potion". Which isn't much of a cost...

If it was, "Hmm, if I cast enough spell, I'll go into decline and not be able to cast magic for a month" that'd be more serious.

Seen any systems or settings that had an interesting price on using magic?

huttj509
2012-10-08, 01:52 AM
I think you're asking the questions the wrong way round.

What result do you want from your magic?

THEN you can decide things like how well defined and mysterious it is.

If you want magic to be something PCs can use freely, well, you need to have a solid idea of what it can so, so that the people trying to use it know what they can use it to do ("If you're a mage, ask your DM what you can do" only works if the DMG equivalent has things well defined).

If you want magic to be mysterious, either PCs should not be able to use it, or you need a reason for them to not know what they're capable of (is it just PCs? All mages?).

In a book, you can more easily have the viewpoint character be an 'apprentice.' He might not really know what he can do, and he can learn things without you needing to tell a player everything in advance.

However, you don't want to cheat the reader or the player. If the apprentice suddenly can cast "summon plot device" with no forewarning, the reader feels cheated. If the enemy wizard can suddenly cast "PC attacks cannot work," the players feel cheated. Note there's exceptions to both of these, but we're looking at general rules (if you're skilled, you can always try breaking the rules, but you need to know what they are and WHY first, otherwise you just wind up with a bad story).

Any type of magic, from mysterious woo-woo to well defined laws is great, but for different types of stories. The classic example is in Lord of the Rings, if Gandalf could suddenly teleport everyone to Mt. Doom, we feel cheated out of the journey. On the other hand, if we know he could teleport everyone to Mt. Doom, and he doesn't, it again falls flat.

I think your misquoting of Sanderson's first law is because in his own riwriting, he leans HEAVILY towards strict rules for magic, even if the reader doesn't know them yet. This lets the magic feel like an understandable part of the world, even if we don't yet understand it. His magic method is not the only way to do magic "right." For Tolkien, magic's mysterious, it's near the 'soft' end of the sliding scale. For Harry Potter, magic's well defined within a book, but more fluid and mysterious between books, it's closer to the middle of the sliding scale.

snoopy13a
2012-10-08, 01:56 AM
More accurately, Sanderson's first law is Your ability to solve problems with magic is directly proportional to how well-defined magic is. Which for gaming systems translates to The PC's ability to use magic is directly proportional to how well-defined magic is. You can't have D&D-style wizards in a system where magic is "mysterious."

Right. And here's Sanderson's own language:

http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/40/sandersons-first-law

For a game system, I'd think you'd probably have to go with what Sanderson calls "hard magic."

I suppose you could try a "soft magic" system, but that would mean that PCs couldn't be magic-users, and the GM would have to be very careful about using magic. The big issue is that many players want concrete rules and definiteness, which a soft magic system doesn't have.

Stories are different and depend on your style. Sanderson explains it better than I can, so just read his article.

Dr.Epic
2012-10-08, 01:58 AM
What if you combine Captain Planet and martial arts? Nobody's ever done that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender)

:smallwink:
:smalltongue:

Blightedmarsh
2012-10-08, 02:17 AM
What about little utility things with minor cost, big things with major cost.

So something as simple as "cure minor illness" could cost an few herbs and an at will where as a large permanent wisdom buff is going to cost a character an eye (one of their own eyes than can not be regrown without dispelling the buff, not newt or something)

Arbane
2012-10-08, 03:28 AM
Seen any systems or settings that had an interesting price on using magic?

Call of Cthulhu has magic costing magic points (which you get back pretty easily) and Sanity Points (which you do NOT, and if they go to zero, you've become an insane NPC).

Unknown Armies has a bunch of different types of 'postmodern magic', all focussed on different obsessions of the modern-day: money, pornography, booze, television... To do magic, you spend 'charges' (which come in three flavors, Minor, Significant, and Major), and do something thematically related to your type of magic. GETTING charges is a bit trickier. Minor charges usually just require some minor obsessive action (like getting a reasonable sum of money for a Plutomance). Significant charges require more effort, and major charges require something like drinking from the Holy Grail (for a Dipsomancer) or starring in an episode of a TV show you're obsessed with (for a Videomancer).

What's worse, each type of magic has a Taboo. Breaking makes you lose ALL charges you have: Dipsomancers must never sober up, Videomancers CAN'T miss watching their show, etc.

Also, most UA 'mancers are basically power-junkies who'd shank their own mothers to get a Major Charge. Being a normal in this setting has definite advantages.

I've seen a fair number of settings that had some sort of Corruption mechanic for using magic. makes it difficult to get to be an experienced wizard while still being sane and unmutated.

Mistwing
2012-10-08, 03:46 AM
When I design magic it usually depedns on the setting. But I prefer to not define it too much. just because people know roughly what they are capable of and how to do it does not mean the know the exact workings of it. Magic is, by definition, something we do not understand. Else it isn't MAGIC. Then it's science. Magic CAN be a science but then the science si applications and limitations of this force rather than actual know how. In most of the cases anyway.

So it really depends. I usually include a rule of thumb for what magic can be used for or how it is gained in systems or stories where magic is supposed to be rare or incomprihensible.

one of my favorite rules for magic is to make it increasingly costly porprotionate to how capable you are of preforming the effect of it without magic. Or making it entierly based on your capablity to do so:

For example, in one story, magic was based on knowledge. it was a mystical capablity some people were born with which allowed them to preform acts without any physical effort as long as they were capable of, or at least knew exactly how, the effect could be achived. weather they had the tools with them or not.

While in a game, magic was trading favors with otherworldy forces. Making it a more ritualistic kind of thing. The price you bargained them became steeper with the greater task you had theese spirits preform or how much power you borrowed. In a later version, men had started subjugating theese spirits to their own will, becoming actual wizards by taming theese spirits and channeling them trough yourself to achive magical effects.

so really, it's all about being inventive. To me, the key is the thumb rule for requirements and limits.

Totally Guy
2012-10-08, 04:06 AM
Seen any systems or settings that had an interesting price on using magic?

Mix and match some of these. Some from games, some from fiction.

High cost of entry: A requirement to undergo a particular ritual before being granted the potential to cast magic. Like spending a resource at character creation or in game.
Cost of generalisation: Each school of magic is it's own skill and requires character investment on each kind.
Tragic destiny: Similar to the world of darkness humanity track, carrying out or experiencing certain things makes their marks until you become something else.
Risk: Casting can fail, its not a guaranteed win.
Personal Harm: The energies harm your body. Maybe this only happens on a failure. Maybe this always happens. Shadowrun does this.
Supernatural complications: There is a chance of the spell being twisted into something else or cosmic horrors arriving on the scene. Burning Wheel had this one.
Spirit Revenge: The forces you control are watching you and get one single attempt to get revenge upon you on a future occasion.
Material cost: You need to have antecedents to your spells from finding and distilling material components. D&D kind of had this occasionally.
Long lead time: It could take a long time. D&D 4th.
Vulnerability to anti-magic: In R Scott Bakker's Second Apocalypse books sorcerers are vulnerable to Chorae which are small but rare gems that make the bearer immune to magic and contact turns sorcerers in salt.
Relationships strain: Mages practicing gradually degrades their friendships.
Age the caster: An old one is that casters get older quicker as they reach their limits.


What costs are really doing is giving you a tool to say "Yes, I believe in this cause strongly enough to face the consequences" or "No, I won't go that far in order to get what I want". When the situation is loaded with conflict and the character must choose, those moments of choice have always been the ones I treasure. When there is no conflict, you can't make a choice (as it's obvious) and without choice there is no need for a character as an automaton could do it.

Morty
2012-10-08, 04:29 AM
This question can't be answered without first asking and answering a couple more. The most important one is - what results do you want to get? Or to be more fancy, what story do you want to tell? The design of magic is going to be radically different depending on whether you want a realistic low fantasy story, a high fantasy saga, a sword and sorcery adventure story or something else entirely. Obviously, though, there's a wide range of viable approaches within those broad strokes as well.

NichG
2012-10-08, 04:43 AM
Whether you should do so or not is a matter of taste and what your system is trying to accomplish, but I do think it is possible to have 'soft magic' in a system that can also be used by the PCs. It does however require that the players have the ability to separate in-character decision-making and out-of-character decision making.

You can do it the same way any system with 'plot points', 'fate points', etc that allow narrative control of the game works. That is to say, all mechanical and concrete decisions about the consequences of a use of magic are decided (and perhaps bid upon) as an out of character activity. Then, once it has been decided, the consequences of magic occur in-character in such a way that in-character there is no knowledge of the OOC resolution that occurred.

You could use this to, for example, model a world where magic represents the fact that the world likes people and grants miracles, but people can only ask for help and not specific help. The players, when magic is used, step OOC and decide how the world will help the character who is asking for help, but the character does not know what miracle he will receive in-character when he asks. Such a magic system would not have hard rules that can be learned in setting - it depends on the whims of the gaming table, an OOC and unknowable-in-world source of the decisions.

Ashtagon
2012-10-08, 05:07 AM
My approach is a mix:

Players should absolutely understand what their characters are capable of. If their character is capable of "using magic with unpredicatable results", they should know the bounds within which that unpredictability ranges from. In game0crunch terms, that means they should be able to look at at least the more probable results of any random results table for their "wild magic" rolls.

Players should equally have an expectation that anyone who studied in the ame school of magic as themselves will have similar capabilities in terms of scope; the other person's power may of course be greater or lesser depending on experience, genetics, or whatever.

They should also have an awareness of most of the common schools of magic, and a reasonable idea of what those schools focus on, especially if those schools are legal and tolerated in society. Everyone knows the School of the Foetid Emerald specialises in plant-based magic, for instance, so when they encounter a wizard from that school they'll know not to expect a fireball to come at them. They'll have a vague idea of what the locally-banned schools do (The school of the Broken Heart? Something about curses I think. Or maybe its blood magic. Best not to ask too closely or the witch hunters will arrest you.)

If they meet a wizard from a far-off land who studied an unknown school, or if they meet someone using an entirely different form of magic, or if they meet a self-schooled magus, all bets are off.

That said, even NPCs have a set of rules they will have to follow. It's just that the PCs ideally won't know those rules except through observation.

When it comes to magic items, it depends on the source. Found magic items are known only to the extent that their identify spells work. Purchased ones will be sold on a caveat emptor basis. The vendor will usually know what the item is, but only because he cast an identify on it. Did you inherit it from your grandpappy? Then you only know its powers to the extent that the family history tells you.

jseah
2012-10-08, 08:37 AM
My approach veers all the way to the 'hard' side of the spectrum. I tend to define my magic in clear and absolute terms.

A useful tool or shortcut I find applies very nicely tends to be to assume that most of classical science applies, but throw out all of relativity and QM. Newton's laws and general chemistry tends to have useful and detailed explanations that you can piggyback your magic system on.

Changing these tend to have... well, let's just say that getting rid of Newton's laws requires you to write something very close to it otherwise you end up with an incomprehensible universe. (or at least strange things like perpetual motion machines with no moving parts; seriously, I came across a system like that once and eventually GM fiat was the only explanation for stopping it; which if you aim to make a consistent magic system, is undesirable)

Chemistry takes a bit more justification to remain, but most elemental systems (4/5/6 element systems) tend to fall short if anyone takes a good look at things. The same happens with light, matter states and the usual things we are familiar with in everyday life.


Relativity and QM tend to only explain some odd minor effects (like lens flare) and so can be done away with more easily. It also simplifies things if you throw them out, so I suggest you do.

About the rest of it, magic tends to be a science in my settings. Strangely enough, wizards don't have to rule the world. Much in the same way that scientists don't rule the world.

EDIT: In most cases, magic in my settings is usuable by anyone. Variations in power may exist depending on the setting, usually from impractically low to archmagi.
In any case, the reason why magic doesn't do everything even though it *can* is because people haven't figured out how to. Much in the same way that even though robots can theoretically do *everything* in RL, they don't.

Jack of Spades
2012-10-08, 05:08 PM
Cost has always been tricky for me to work out. If you just have a mana pool, then the only cost is, "I won't be able to use spells till I rest or drink a potion". Which isn't much of a cost...

If it was, "Hmm, if I cast enough spell, I'll go into decline and not be able to cast magic for a month" that'd be more serious.

Seen any systems or settings that had an interesting price on using magic?

What's this!? Another place I could shoehorn Deadlands Classic into a conversation? Huzzah!

So, Deadlands magic is run by several completely different kinds of flavor. There are manitou (demons), nature spirits, loa (voodoo manitou), ch'i, and then there's God(s).

Each system has different prices for their magic:
Manitou (mad science and hexes): Magic is done by allowing yourself to become a conduit through which a demon can affect the world. Mad scientists aren't aware of this, but hucksters (hexslingers) are, and they engage in a battle of wits with the things. In either case, if they grab too big a demon, the demon will have a chance to wreak havoc on the caster and his surroundings. Mad scientists go insane, hucksters' manitou hurt the caster or those around them (or drive them insane).
Nature spirits: Native American shamans do magic by undergoing rituals to gain the favor of their medicine spirits. These rituals usually involve damaging or inconveniencing onesself: fasting, cutting, painstakingly tattooing themselves.
Loa: A bit tamer and more mysterious than manitou (but probably nearly the same thing), these spirits power voodoo magic. Voodoo is Deadlands' implementation of Vancian magic. Every spell requires that one collect herbs and other supplies to make a 'conjure bag,' which holds the power of the loa until it is released in the form of the desired spell.
Ch'i: Not sure exactly what this one is, other than the fact that it's pretty much pulled directly from Jet Li movies. Seriously. Ki'ai, kata, crazy wire-fu, the whole shebang. I'm pretty sure their cost has something to do with needing to have achieved enlightenment, though.
God(s): The Blessed are given gifts and allowed to perform miracles in the name of their God(s). The source of this power is explicitly the God(s) and there are Blessed of all faiths. Their only cost is that they must not sin. Which is difficult in an RPG where the only thing you can fight without sinning are the overpowered manitou-zombies called Harrowed.

So yeah, a lot of RP and timesink costs. Luckily, the power levels of those magics are decently balanced, save for the last two. Also, taking up magic is a huge time/XP sink because Deadlands classic gives out XP at a geological pace. That, and the magic systems are dripping with flavor, which I love.

awa
2012-10-10, 09:00 PM
you can have the pcs use magic and have it be mysterious if you do it right and the setting supports it.

for example in my current game the pcs will potentially soon find a book of summoning spells thing is none of the spells are labeled and they summon creatures that are unknown to the pcs society. so using the magic is very much trial and error. some of the monsters get angry if you lock them in a summoning circle during the negotiations becuase they think it's rude. others will be angry if you don't becuase they think your saying your so weak i don't even need to take basic precautions.

the things that can make this works is magic is not vital for any character to function no player is a "summoner" summoning is just something any of the players can try as something extra.

a different rout magic can be mysterious to the characters even if it's not mysterious to the players. the player might be able to read about varies spell levels and schools of magic but their character needs to make spell craft checks and if they fail they have no idea what just happened

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-11, 05:16 AM
What costs are really doing is giving you a tool to say "Yes, I believe in this cause strongly enough to face the consequences" or "No, I won't go that far in order to get what I want". When the situation is loaded with conflict and the character must choose, those moments of choice have always been the ones I treasure. When there is no conflict, you can't make a choice (as it's obvious) and without choice there is no need for a character as an automaton could do it.

This works when the choice is whether to cast a spell at all, when the act of magic itself is supposed to have dramatic weight. There's nothing wrong with this design space, but there's a lot of good, fertile territory to explore outside of it.

It also tends to fall apart in many fantasy gaming systems, where the assumption is getting magic at all (or at least, non-worthless magic) requires investing your entire character into it. So your choice isn't to use magic or non-magic to solve a problem, it's using magic or leaving the problem unsolved. It works better when spellcasting is only a small part of a character's capabilities.

Krazzman
2012-10-11, 06:00 AM
I tried to homebrew a Magic System for... well 3.5 along with a few other specific stuff but anyway.

I treid to wrap my mind around a system where the UA Spell Point System and Pathfinders Words of Power as long as a System similar to Shadowruns magic system were combined.

This is (sort of) still sticking in the I have an interesting idea phase as stuff happened the last 2 years and we now play with other guys.

For me you would categorize in "schools". Conjuration (summoning as well as single target damage spells [elemental orbs and arrows for example]), Necromancy (or better phrased Positive and Negative Energy School), Evokation (AoE damage spells mainly), Transmutation (Control Earth etc and such stuff as well as Buff spells), Convenience&Wards (Endure Elements for example or Unseen Servant etc.) and so on.

The point of this would be you get generic spells. Like as Evoker you would get Blast Shape (Cost 1 SP+1SP/5ft radius.) which you have to add an element to (example Fire +1 SP, Sonic +5 SP depending again on System Balance).

The idea behind that would be that Mages have to choose a Primary and Secondary School. The Primary School would be chosen by class and the secondary would be open. the Convenience and Wards would be open to everyone, fixed. With Classes only consisting of about 10 levels this would bring a nice change. The plan was to achieve something similar to Ragnarok like first Mage then Wizard and so on. Evoker class makes Evocation Spells better/cheaper whilst the second grade could focus on an element and the third on either range radius or special abilities.

That system would be pretty awesome and probably easier to balance melees with.

Totally Guy
2012-10-11, 06:04 AM
This works when the choice is whether to cast a spell at all, when the act of magic itself is supposed to have dramatic weight.

I agree that there are a lot of games in which my preferences are not supported.

I guess you could move the conflict to other situations and still support making choices. Can you give me any examples of games that emphasise conflict between some other aspects?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-10-11, 06:19 AM
I agree that there are a lot of games in which my preferences are not supported.

I guess you could move the conflict to other situations and still support making choices. Can you give me any examples of games that emphasise conflict between some other aspects?

Ars Magica (5th edition, anyway) has critfails as a possibility for some spells, and material costs for more powerful rituals, and fatigue loss if you so choose, but it's always possible to cast at least some magic for free, even if that magic won't be very powerful. Casting a spell isn't really considered an event of dramatic weight and it's sortof expected that Magi use their spells all the time without really giving it much of a thought. The conflict to be explored is instead the effects this easy magic has (both the spellcasting ability itself and the additional side effects of the Gift) not only on the internal social structure of the Magi themselves, but also between Magi and mundane society at large.

Due to reasons I'd rather not go off topic ranting about here, Mythic Europe as a setting doesn't support this all too well, but that's the direction the rules seem to be going for.

jseah
2012-10-11, 07:02 AM
Oh yes, here's another one for the "understandable" sciency magic. Especially for the kind of campaigns where players will likely get to design their own magic and generally poke at the system.

Do not allow magic to "think".

What I mean:
This means any effect that requires magic to act differently based on overall properties.

Magic can behave differently to different materials, that's fine. But magic behaving differently based on the shape, ownership or other such concepts is always a bad idea if you aim to have a fully explainable sciency magic system.

Explaining this always gets incredibly hairy when anyone takes too close a look. If you want to, defining it strictly and sticking with the consequences works, but be prepared to deal with unintended interactions.

I accidentally stepped on this back in the days when I innocently asked a question in a freeform game: "What is an object?"

Ashtagon
2012-10-11, 07:31 AM
Do not allow magic to "think".

I agree, but in a slightly different direction. Comprehend languages is my favourite example of this. It allows a character to know and speak a language fluently, despite the fact that even the very existence of the language may have been unknown to the person who invented the spell.

Divination spells that give away too much information spoil far too many potential storylines.

NichG
2012-10-11, 07:47 AM
I understand what jseah means there. Its more about running it, but even more than that running it with a party who is willing to fully explore the consequences of the observed rules of magic. Once magic 'thinks' then a clever caster can conclude that certain high-level concepts are fundamental to reality while others are not (for instance, using Magic Missile to detect whether something is a Construct or just a statue).

I feel one could make a neat list of things that cause problems for 'sciencey-magic' systems:

- Magic that can think
- Magic that can read/respond to thoughts (forces you to figure out 'how do brains work' to run it correctly in extreme cases)
- Magic that knows about a 'fixed' reference frame, or otherwise magic that gets hairy to run if you don't assume a 'fixed' reference frame. For example: Wall of Force - either you assume that it will always be fixed relative to anything important, or if you don't then its the world's best wrecking ball. Another example is teleportation - does it conserve momentum? If so, when you teleport across the world do you get thrown into the sky/smashed into the ground? If it doesn't conserve momentum, how does it 'know' what the right rest frame to use is - what happens if you teleport onto a barge that has a conveyor belt on the deck and ...
- Biological magic (if its not the only magic; if biology hasn't been drastically simplified in-setting). Biology is complicated, so why is a spell that heals a wound as simple as a spell that makes a spark?

That said, I like to actually use some of these to distinguish magic from technology in my settings. Compared to technology, magic (for me) has two distinctly different properties:

- It responds to an individual being's will, and can be wielded by the individual without the construction of tools to harness it (aside from the occasional focus or whatever). Basically, its personal power rather than power built by society. This makes it philosophically a very disruptive force - a guy sitting in a prison cell for 20 years could theoretically by will or cleverness or whatever eventually figure out a powerful spell that would get him free. A peasant starving in a village could one day suddenly intuit the depths of magic and suddenly become as powerful as the soldiers that are repressing him.
- There is some form of intellect behind it, and it is able to 'think' and empathize with the minds that control it. This could be a god of magic, a universal will, the collective expectations of mankind, whatever. But this distinction is important conceptually - it is why magical effects can have a very nonsensical mapping between difficulty and the complexity of what the magic really does. Because its all about the scale relative to a human's experience, healing a bruise and lighting a small fire can be the same difficulty. Because its all relative to human experience, it tends to be intuitive when looked at shallowly, but deeply counter-intuitive when looked at deeply. As such, it holds sway in places where 'fairy tale' or 'storybook' logic apply to the world - these are the consequences of the intellect behind magic having idiosyncracies, beliefs, 'liking an idea', etc.

If you embrace these two ideas, then you can 'explain' why magic works without necessarily having to break it down to the elementary interactions you might expect from 'sciencey' magic. Even with these two things, magic can always work the same way, be reproducible, etc, but it means that the fundamental 'why' questions have more to do with psychology than physics: magic doesn't teleport someone with the wrong momentum because that person wants to arrive alive, and so the magic responds to that desire. It picks the reference frame that does no harm to the caster.

Axier
2012-10-11, 07:52 AM
If we are talking role-playing games, if you are going to have magic available to players, it has to be understandable, and have limits (with the exception of Free Form RP, which can get really crazy anyway).

The system also needs to make sense. Honestly, I am not a fan of the vanacian style magic in D&D, but what I do like is the ritual magic discussed in Unearthed Arcana, as well as D20 Modern's Urban Arcana. The rituals can be performed by any class, but there is risks involved, and they require time. This makes magic more of a challenge, something for the characters to defeat as well as use as a tool. Its like taming the wild force of electricity, only you are the conduit, and your more likely to get fried.

If you make your setting, the world into somewhere where magic is commonplace, I like the concept of cooldowns, but implementing them requires more time management.
There is also a spell point system in Unearthed Arcana with options that basically make you weak and sickened if you drop below a certain point, but you can rest to regain some of your spellcasting strength. Basically you start out fresh and as you go, you start to slow down your capabilities, but you don't run out.

jseah
2012-10-11, 08:29 AM
Basically, its personal power rather than power built by society. This makes it philosophically a very disruptive force - a guy sitting in a prison cell for 20 years could theoretically by will or cleverness or whatever eventually figure out a powerful spell that would get him free. A peasant starving in a village could one day suddenly intuit the depths of magic and suddenly become as powerful as the soldiers that are repressing him.
I actually use this as a guideline to making my magic systems. They still end up with magitech being possible (the existence of such allows me to do a fantasy version of the industrial revolution, the happening of which has nearly unlimited plot hooks; best of all, it functions as a mirror of reality so the players don't get blindsided by transdimensional brain eaters or something crazy like that)
but the baseline level of personal power through training and skill is much much higher than normal.


Another one for those sciency magic systems:
There's absolutely no reason why your biology won't use magic. If people's bodies and brains depend on magic all the time, not only does it get lethal if damaged, it also explains exhaustion from magic use as well as the more outlandish things (like easily surviving a twenty storey fall)

And look, the magic side of the body looks suspiciously like a 'soul' or 'lifeforce' which sciency systems often have alot of trouble dealing with.

faustin
2012-10-11, 04:37 PM
Loa: A bit tamer and more mysterious than manitou (but probably nearly the same thing),

Just a note: Loas in Deadlands are actually nature spirits as perceived by houngans and mambos, which makes Vodoo almost a different approach to shamanism.

NichG
2012-10-11, 05:23 PM
Another one for those sciency magic systems:
There's absolutely no reason why your biology won't use magic. If people's bodies and brains depend on magic all the time, not only does it get lethal if damaged, it also explains exhaustion from magic use as well as the more outlandish things (like easily surviving a twenty storey fall)

And look, the magic side of the body looks suspiciously like a 'soul' or 'lifeforce' which sciency systems often have alot of trouble dealing with.

This is what I mean about biology having to change to make it make sense. A corollary of magic being personal power and driven by the will of the user is that magic without its own intellect can only do simple things, because the human mind can't actually contain and work with much information. So there needs to be a biological equivalent 'heal that volume of tissue' that is as simple as the physical 'heat that volume of fluid'.

jseah
2012-10-11, 08:56 PM
This is what I mean about biology having to change to make it make sense. A corollary of magic being personal power and driven by the will of the user is that magic without its own intellect can only do simple things, because the human mind can't actually contain and work with much information. So there needs to be a biological equivalent 'heal that volume of tissue' that is as simple as the physical 'heat that volume of fluid'.

The problem with actually having such would be that regeneration as given in D&D would become totally possible.

Which kinda kills all your tension when the wounded hero simply pulls the arrow out of his chest, lies down for a bit and is perfectly good to go after a short nap.

....

Hrm. That sounds a bit familiar. =D


Also, it strikes me that the magic as lifeforce part is also a perfect explanation for why people can use magic in the first place. Why, they ARE half made of it!

Bucky
2012-10-11, 09:47 PM
Regardless of the details, a spell that creates a grain of sand and then casts two copies of itself should either be impossible to put together or run out of something before it floods the world with sand.

jseah
2012-10-12, 01:52 PM
I solve that problem by having an "extreme conditions" clause.

It is an out that allows me to say, "all these rules here only apply to the common situation". If you violate the assumptions, then the rules must change to reflect the new conditions. (usually a guideline is given)

Applied to self-replicating spells
In the specific case of self-replicating spells, there is a factor called environmental magic. Namely that the amount of magic existing on the planet is some fixed amount, distributed over the whole planet giving some average density of magic per volume.
In normal use, this amount is high enough to be unlimited (an army of mages could not wield even a fraction of the total magic contained in a small house); in the given case, it turns into a bottleneck.

Making a spell that replicates itself is perfectly possible in that magic system I wrote up. (there are a few finicky requirements you have to get by combining multiple areas at the same time, so it's pretty involved, requires lots of magic power and replication time is dependent on your skill, starting somewhere in hours)
The problem being that magic spells have to get their magic from the environment, and with a very high density of magic rechargers (one of the requirements for self-replicating spells), the environment starts to run out and the rechargers work less efficiently.
And then you have to rely on attracting magic from outside the local area, which has other assumptions (low magic density and high rate of mana flow) that get violated as attractor density goes up. (I wrote far down enough to justify a magical singularity forming and then just made it blow up. Violently. )
- The amount of magic involved in getting such a singularity is pretty ridiculous, but there's at least three different bottlenecks that you reach before you hit that level.

EDIT: you might note that this is exactly the same clause that applies to lots of science "laws". Like Newton's Mechanics applies to the assumption of low speed and low gravity.
In the same way, game rules and descriptions have their own assumptions and use-area.

Bucky
2012-10-13, 11:40 PM
I might as well throw the rest of my benchmark spells at it then:

Stored spells?

i.e. a metamagic construct as a spell or part of it that stores a spell in an object, and a trigger spell that sets off any spells stored in an object.


Magical computers?

i.e. a spell that constructs and casts other spells according to a program. The programs should be sufficiently versatile to mimic a low-end real world computer in addition to casting spells.

Wishes?

In two varieties - a "natural" wish that reads the caster's mind and does what they want it to do if it's possible, and a "formal" wish that requires a precise description of the effect and might fail or have unintended consequences if the description isn't good enough.

Jack of Spades
2012-10-14, 02:27 AM
Just a note: Loas in Deadlands are actually nature spirits as perceived by houngans and mambos, which makes Vodoo almost a different approach to shamanism.

Ah, that makes more sense. I didn't have Hexarcana on hand when writing that post, so I'm sure both Ch'i and Voodoo magic are completely off :smalltongue:

Autolykos
2012-10-14, 04:15 AM
I prefer magic systems that follow somewhat clear-cut rules known to the players - if it gets too wild, neither players nor GM can plan for anything. At least, that's for a magic *system*. If you want to introduce anything wild or mysterious as a GM, having rules for it is kind of a contradiction in terms.
Basically, once magic is a tool commonly used in a world (at least by a somewhat large-ish group), it will get properly studied, cataloged and tested. There might still be unknown stuff out there, but it should not be common. I also have a preference for rather open skills that are not limited to a list of very specific spells found in a book. If I want to go for spells, rules to design them are more important than a list (at least that's the way I go in the system I'm building right now - check my sig).
As for costs, I find short-term exhaustion the easiest to balance. It makes "going nova" less game-breaking and gives the party somewhat consistent resources at the beginning of each encounter. Bad consequences are for systems where I want magic to be used sparingly, if at all (and should be left to the GM entirely - having rules for those only makes it part of the deal).

the_david
2012-10-14, 04:44 AM
This might be because I started roleplaying with the Marvel Universe RPG, but I generally like magic systems that have different forms of magic for different kinds of casters.

Bards don't have spells, they have songs.
Clerics/priests/prophets don't have spells, they perform miracles.
Psions use there own force of will.
Technomancers use magic to create wondrous devices.
Wild mages use chaos magic. It's unpredictable.
Witches use curses.
Wizards... Not sure, rituals perhaps?

jseah
2012-10-16, 04:10 AM
I might as well throw the rest of my benchmark spells at it then:
Was this addressed at me? Ok, I'll try.


Stored spells?
In my system, Alchemy is a way of trapping magic inside physical materials. Certain materials contain certain elements in amounts that depend on the skill of the alchemist. Put a perfectly normal spell, cast using Alchemist techniques, onto the correct materials, and suddenly magic power loss over time (the usual reason why spells have fixed duration) goes to zero.
Of course, this results in magic items that are "easy" and cheap to make since they cost nothing but a fixed material cost and some renewable magic power.
It also makes magic items "dispellable" in the same way as spells... since in my magic system, magic items ARE identical to spells. If you were insane and powerful enough, you could cast and make a wand of fireball that was always "on".
I believe this helps with the WBL problem (can't take away magic items from players), in that equipment is much easier to replace and becomes more like tools you'ld take along for a given task.

Most magic items are one-shot (easy to make, but harder than casting the spells on the spot), with the materials reusuable.
(potions aren't for obvious reasons, potions only work because disintegrating the material is detectable by the spell, which can be made to react to it, see below)

Any magic effect uses magic power, so to have recharging magic items, you need to use rechargers, a type of component you can use in spells, which can slowly stockpile magic power for the spell in the item to use. Subject to the environmental restrictions of my previous post.
The spell can also use rechargers to offset magic power loss over time, which is how location based spells without an alchemy item work, eg. Wards.

(btw. location is referenced to the local magic field, which is centered on the planet and rotates with it; so if you cast a "stationary" spell on a fast moving train, it'll go shooting out the back.
Alchemy spells are centered on their item. )


Magical computers?
A semi-common technique of advanced casters allows the spell to have some amount of pre-programmed reactions to outside inputs.
This is very much like an event-driven scripting language, with an ability to handle some things that normal computers can't easily or at least without alot of coding (like convex volumes, areas and images)

Parameters of each spell component are defined in the component's description, and these are what Spell Technique can modify on the fly according to its script.

An even more advanced version dedicates some magic to pure data processing and can do correspondingly more advanced things (this is not described in exact terms). Prereqs for this spell component include ranks in logic and mathematics among other things.


Wishes?
This falls under the "do not let magic think". Wishes are not possible, period.

AI is technically possible, but even an AI wish granter would be no more than a magical servant, who is limited by the spells (although those can make their own to fit the situation and so aren't quite as limited as you think)

The spell techniques tree: Spell Technique -> Data Processing -> Pattern Recognition -> Decision Theory -> Autonomous Behaviour;
so not only is AI incredibly costly to access in terms of character advancement points, each step along the way is the equivalent of a full tech level in the setting so can't be accessed without the GM saying this is possible.