Magic Rewrite Ideas

[Sagwort 833]

Note: this is not a post questioning whether or not we should have a magic rewrite, but rather if we did, what do you people think would be a better system?

 

Note: Note: this is not a post questioning whether or not we should have a magic rewrite, but rather if we did, what do you people think would be a better system?

 

Note:Note: Note: this is not a post questioning whether or not we should have a magic rewrite, but rather if we did, what do you people think would be a better system?

 

Do you understand?  I'm not questioning if we should have a magic rewrite (I know we probably never will), but if we did by some act of God or Odin or Buddha, what do you think would be the best next system of magic to work with?

 

Would it be RPG based?  D&D inspired?  WHAT?!

 

I do not want to see comments that say stuff like: "We should not have a magic rewrite" or... "This is what is wrong with the current system."  I don't care, I just want to know what a new magic system would look like.

 

Also, mayhaps to inspire you I'm going to leave this summary of Sanderson's Laws of magic writing that I wrote up some time ago:

 

Spoiler

Quote

Allow me to cite Brandon Sanderson's (Famed fantasy writer) Three Laws of Magic Systems:

 

Before I begin this overly long winded explanation I would like to point out that comparing rp to writing may seem a bit like a straw man type argument.  However, I firmly believe that every roleplayer and every lore writer is in fact an author contributing to the grand Odyssey that is LotC.  Note that these are Brandon Sanderson's ideas, not mine.  I take credit for none, I am simply the messenger.

 

Also note that Sanderson stresses that his laws of magic are not concrete or the end all be all of writing (or in our case roleplaying).

 

While this is literal wall of text, and I did my best to break it up with colors (yay!) I URGE you to read this as I believe Sanderson as some excellent ideas and probably much more success and experience with producing magic systems than we do.

 

As roleplayers involved in a community we can actively change we are both the author and the readers.

 

The 1st Law: An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands the magic.

 

Sanderson states that there are two forms of magic systems: Soft Magic and Hard Magic.

 

Soft Magic is the older form of magic that has been a long established tradition in fantasy for decades.  This sort of magic does not completely explain how or why magic works thus producing a sense of wonder and a sense of tension as man becomes a far tiny part of the universe, a small part in a much larger scheme seemingly driven by magic.  Authors known for this sort of style are Tolkien who never really explores the full power or mechanics behind the Istari Wizards or any other sort of magical figures within the book.  However, the defining feature behind this sort of magic system is that magic is VERY RARELY used to actually solve conflict or problems within the book.  In A Song of Ice and Fire, by George R. R. Martin, the world of Westeros is filled with magic that is hardly explained and rarely used and yet the entire overlying plot of the North, long winters, dragons, etc... are driven by magic.  Thus, the reader feels that despite the political story archs there is something darker, more mystical, and perhaps too large for any man to handle hanging over the characters you grow to hate and love.  It is this lack of understanding that produces this sense of wonder, fear, and tension. Think of the Cthulhu mythos: ancient gods that we petty fleshlings could never defeat.  Creatures so powerful that they don't even bother dealing with the affairs of mortals. 

 

Now many would agree that this is the "ideal" sort of magic for any proper fantasy setting, and to be honest, LotC at one point had a very Soft Magic sort of system.  Early Aegis for example; we knew of these great powerful Ascended and Undead, but the common player had not a clue of their dealings or how their magic worked.  Thus, this sense of awe, fear, and wonder was produced.  Unfortunately, it would be near impossible to return to this state as LotC is a community based around structure and rules, any sort of RPG or RP sort of game generally is.  As players, as mages, we want to be able to solve conflict with our magic as the knight solves conflict with a blade or a baker solves conflict with an oven.  We cannot have a system of magic that is poorly understood because it would be difficult to affect RP scenarios with it as people would feel cheated, feel it is somehow unfair.  Similar to how we might feel if Gandalf simply flew the Hobbits to Mordor, to use a soft magic system to regularly solve conflict, even everyday conflict, would only detract from rp.

 

Hard Magic, on the other hand, is the system we very much use now.  This is the system where the author explicitly explains the rules of their magic system to the reader.  This way the reader, or the roleplayer, can feel that they are part of this magic.  Characterization can occur, plot twists, and clever uses of the rules can be applied to various scenarios.  If the roleplayer and/or reader understands the magic they can use said magic to solve (and even cause) problems.  Rather than having conflict mystically solved by magic (Which we often view as cheating) magic suddenly becomes a tool that needs to be used properly and understood to be used to its full potential.  Note that when Sanderson says "Hard Magic" he does not mean magic needs to follow scientific laws or even have the reader understand why magic works.  They simply need to understand what they can DO with magic, its limits.  Other instances of Hard Magic include most superhero stories.  As the story progresses we come to understand the limits of the superhero so we don't feel cheated when the superhero shoots beams out of his eyes because we say, "Oh, I've seen him do that before."  rather than if the superhero suddenly is invincible to bullets without explanation, which we would call bad writing.

 

Now Sanderson does speak of a median between these two extremes of magic.  He uses Harry Potter as an example.  Yes, we know what sorts of magic the characters know how to use, their abilities, their limits.  We even know how things such as horcrux's work.  Yet... we don't really understand the fully potential of magic.  Think of all the spells that might still exist in that universe that are never revealed in the books?  We never see the full power of Dumbledore, do we? Or even the full potential of Grindelwald.

 

-----

 

2nd Law: Limitations > Power

 

On LotC we are fascinated by the RED LINES of magic.  It is expected that every new proposed magic has some red lines to limit what the roleplayer  can do with said magic.  (ie. Becoming tired when using magic, needing a certain knowledge to cast a spell, growing physically weaker over time, not being able to make permanent evocations, mana.) This is meant to make the magic balanced within the LotC world, we view it much as a game developer might.  But let us view it as a writer might.

 

Sanderson states that the limitations of magic should not be used to "balance" magic but to add struggle, tension, and depth to the magic and the plot.  Struggle will force characters to work for their goals.  One such struggle causing limitation on LotC is not being able to levitate or enchant living things.  Granted we view it more as a red line.  But think about the struggle this might cause someone?  Suddenly the mage has to work harder, they have to think around their issues... unfortunately when people on this server try to be clever or witty with their magic they are generally called out.  This is why limitations exist though, for the mage to find ways to work around them.  Mayhaps if we view red lines as less of a balancing act and more as rp devices for use in day to day rp.

 

Tension, of course, is what makes rp most interesting.  Superman fighting any normal man is rather "Meh" because we know that Superman is so powerful, however... add kryptonite to the equation and suddenly we are at the edges of our seat, wondering how we will WORK AROUND this limitation.  See, on LotC when magic users face a problem involving red lines they are forced to or inclined to give up, we must embrace the idea of finding loop holes in the rules of magic, working out our problems with magic rather than viewing magic as a situational tool.

 

Limitations always create depth as well, making the magic less 2D and more 3D.

 

Sanderson goes on to explain the difference between limitations, weaknesses, and costs.  

 

Limitations are things the magic system cannot do (levitate living things, create permanent evocations, turn one material into another).  Rather than viewing limitations as rules and parameters we should view them as an extra dynamic to the magic, something that add conflict.  We don't necessarily need to change our need for red lines, to have these is very important.  However, changing the way we THINK about these red lines is what needs to happen.

 

Weakness, unlike Limitations, are things the enemy can exploit.  More character based weaknesses might be their moral principle, their addictions, etc...  Sanderson generally avoids weaknesses.  While he says kryptonite makes and excellent limitation, it falls short and becomes rather cliche eventually.  Need a way to check your man of steel?  Just add a situation he is powerless in.  This might seem equally as cheap as suddenly having all your problems solved with over powering magic.  Presently, we view red lines as weaknesses, not limitations.  They are made to check and balance the magic so that we can't go around force choking people or setting fires from a mile away.

 

Costs is something I personally think LotC does quite well with magic.  Costs range from our need for mana, the development of fatigue after long bouts of magic, insanity, physical deterioration, even something like unquestionable loyalty to a deity could be considered a cost.  Granted, Sanderson warns against too debilitating of a cost as it can easily lead to never having a good situation to actually use the magic in.  This often leads us to discuss why and how magic works.

 

-----

 

3rd Law: Expand what you already have before you add something new.

 

This law PERFECTLY explains the situation LotC is currently in with magic.  Sanderson explains that often times the most interesting magic based fantasies are not ones with a massive catalog of abilities but rather one with a few that has a great deal of depth.  Rather than produce magic systems that are the size of an ocean and as deep as a puddle, we should work on creating deep magic systems.  Focus on a few simple magical concepts and see how much we can do with those.  I could rant on and on about how we could do many of the new magics we have with nothing more than telekinesis.  Why summon rocks when we could just pick some up?  Why have a magic silencing magic instead of just getting creative with the way we use wards?  I could go on but you see my point.  Sanderson also notes that for a magic to be deep it needs to be deeply interconnected with society, culture the economy, etc... This is why I love the concept of Court Wizards and Magic Guilds (As you have seen my numerous attempts to produce successful ones.)

 

Essentially, Sanderson breaks down deepening magic into three different directions:

 

Extrapolate: This basically suggests that as writers (or lore writers) we need to think about how making changes to magic will affect the world and the magical community within it.  For instance, how synthetic blood might affect vampire culture.  We see how much the introduction of Arcane Engineering has affected our magic community.  No longer do we cast fireballs but we build machines with magic to do it for us.  Magic is now more mechanic and creation based rather than actual directly magic based (Which I have no problem with.)  Lore writers (And that goes for anyone who wants to write magic lore) should ask themselves "What happens when?..." whenever they intend to introduce a new form of magic.  How will this affect the magical community?

 

Interconnect: This suggests that magics should be both interconnected with other magic, characters, culture, etc...  One good example of culture and magic on the server is the religion based magics of Elves and Orcs with their druids and shamans.  Mages have much less of a cultural impact, it seems.  We should also not have strange "that's cool" magics that don't really mesh with the dynamic of the server or even with your own character.  Think about what magics suits your character and might further their growth and add depth to them rather than what suits your "that looks cool" mindset.  Something that might go more towards our lore masters is connecting magic to overarching themes within the realm.  Use magics the already exist to alter the realm, don't make up cool looking magics or ideas just for a certain event.  Consistency is of of utmost importance when producing viable magic systems, otherwise we begin to feel cheated again.

 

Streamline: This ties in with interconnection.  We as lore writers and players should look at our own characters, cultures, and magic and think "How can I combine these?"  Rather than inventing a whole new form of magic for a barely rped race of cat people why don't we use magic that already exists and think "Maybe these cat people think magic works differently?"  Or maybe they use fire evocation in different ways?  Maybe they tie something like conjuration into their own religion with rituals and ceremonies which may have no real affect on the magic itself but would certainly add dynamic to the culture.  I mean, think of the implications fire evocation could have on dwarven culture?  We just need to think of how dwarves would use this magic differently than say elves or if elves would even use it at all.  I believe leowarrior did a great job when defining how Mali should view fire evocation, as destructive.  Granted, the dwarves may see it more as tool rather than a corrupting force.  

 

 

DON'T CREATE, ADAPT!  DON'T ADD, EXPAND!

 

I know there is a whole nother psychology behind this community with cliques, and relationships not covered by authors... something we may never truly solve.  Buy maybe applying these rules to our way of viewing magic might help.

 

[winterblood 11181]

I've had thoughts of something along this for a while, but I'm currently on mobile. I'll come back to this later and edit the comment when I have more time and a better keyboard that doesn't autocorrect me every other word I type. 

[Stag 3229]

It is hard for me to think about this anymore due to my extreme bias towards my own magic and how far it has grown.

 

 

However IF it were to happen I would simply reorganize everything to make it so there weren't as many off-shoots in power sources. I like the idea that evocations become elementalism but I believe the reason they don't cause permanent elements is due to the player's inability to physically change most of the world.

 

I would probably see a magic system based around the elements but include light, dark, chaos and order. Beyond that I am lost. D&D style could be a lot of fun tbh and is very vast and easy to understand due to rolling and all that jazz.  

[Suika 111]

I would enjoy simplified soft magic, much as is used in the Lord of the Rings and Howl's Moving Castle. I would enjoy whimsical spells that need no explanation, yet have subtle rules and lines behind who can and cannot cast them, and consequences of mis-use. 

 

New System:

• Many spellbooks are laying around in the world, hidden behind rocks, some naturally occurring behind waterfalls, others manufactured by spellbook making wizards, and some only available by boss fights. Some inexplicably drop from monsters while others are inexhaustibly available from NPCs. The books are consumable.
• Each day a wizard can prepare an allotted number of spells for that day. (like D&D)
• Not all spells have an archetype. Some spells require that the wizard be learned in at least a couple other spells of its archetype. For example if a wizard finds a powerful spell for necromancy, it might require that the wizard already know a couple other weaker necromancy spells before learning it. 
• Some spells are 0-level and can be used repeatedly without preparation.
• Magic can be written down onto paper and saved for future use.
• Curses can be written down onto paper and may have harmful effects for both the recipient and the caster.
• New spells can be developed by mixing or changing currently learned spell(s) into a new spell, the new spell would need to go up for review by the Magical Council to deem whether or not it is appropriate for it's level, and the Magical Council would have the power to modify or remove the spell from all of Axios for eternity if deemed inappropriate.
• Should it be deemed necessary, the Magical Council can reduce the number of spells that wizards can cast per day. Of course, this might limit their own power. The council is an in-game authority on magic, and if they were ever destroyed, magic might be lost for a very long time until a new Magical Council is established.
• As Wizards overcome more challenges, they would gain EXP with which to increase their level. 
• Very rare spells like "meteor" might exist, but upon use they have a chance of vanishing, being forgotten, or dropped elsewhere for another wizard to find. They tend to find higher level wizards more often than not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zindran 590]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.