Magic systems can be very difficult to put into rules. Free-form and universal magic system can be horror to put into rules. There's a simple reason behind this: Magic can be anything. And trying to squeeze everything into a ruleset is hard.
Which is why most magic is setting-bound. Having a background story to how and why magic works can limit what magic actually consists of very much. And with a topic such as magic, that can be a good thing. It is subtle nudges at some force, causing minor effects? Simple card tricks that create magical results? Psionics? Fireball-hurling dudes in robes? Answered prayers to deities? Arcanists able to sink entire cities or create huge storms?
Setting down magic can be a daunting task, especially with so much potential, and the necessity to limit one's flow of ideas. But for those who want to try it all, there's always Universal Magic.
Basically, many universal systems strive to be just that: universal. They can (theoretically) be applied to any world, and encompass all the rules that might come up: character generation, action resolution, combat rules, and, of course, magic. There are many ways of accessing this issue, but in many universal rules, there are already baseline assumptions on how magic works, regardless of setting. And that is no longer universal.
But instead of saying that this is all useless, I'll instead try and come up with a few ideas on my own on how magic can be categorized effectively. There are two basic things to consider when looking at various spells: How they function, and what they affect. Many people choose only one of these, or even mix those together (D&D being a good example). Instead, it would be better to have two separate "layers", one for the basic functioning of magic, and one for their form of expression.
As an example, take a classic, the fireball. Clearly, there is a fire element in it, but rather than categorizing it as fire-magic, it's possible to say that it is a force-creation effect that uses fire. In the same sense, you could have an iceball, or an acidball, or whatever. It's the same base category of spells (force-effect, or evocation, or whatever you may want to call it) that uses different elements in it. This principle can now be applied to almost all magic there is, from divination using vision, to creation using iron (making an iron wall), or animation using plants, to have trees come to life and help out in combat.
Of course, such a system is not perfect (perfection anywhere is unachievable), but it's my preferred system to use for universal magic. And not only universal, but this type of design can also be applied to setting-bound systems, in which case the list of functions and elements can be adjusted to fit the setting.
So here just a bit on magic systems. It's an exciting topic, and I'll most likely post more on that, but for now, I'll leave this be. Until my next post,
Qi
Which is why most magic is setting-bound. Having a background story to how and why magic works can limit what magic actually consists of very much. And with a topic such as magic, that can be a good thing. It is subtle nudges at some force, causing minor effects? Simple card tricks that create magical results? Psionics? Fireball-hurling dudes in robes? Answered prayers to deities? Arcanists able to sink entire cities or create huge storms?
Setting down magic can be a daunting task, especially with so much potential, and the necessity to limit one's flow of ideas. But for those who want to try it all, there's always Universal Magic.
Basically, many universal systems strive to be just that: universal. They can (theoretically) be applied to any world, and encompass all the rules that might come up: character generation, action resolution, combat rules, and, of course, magic. There are many ways of accessing this issue, but in many universal rules, there are already baseline assumptions on how magic works, regardless of setting. And that is no longer universal.
But instead of saying that this is all useless, I'll instead try and come up with a few ideas on my own on how magic can be categorized effectively. There are two basic things to consider when looking at various spells: How they function, and what they affect. Many people choose only one of these, or even mix those together (D&D being a good example). Instead, it would be better to have two separate "layers", one for the basic functioning of magic, and one for their form of expression.
As an example, take a classic, the fireball. Clearly, there is a fire element in it, but rather than categorizing it as fire-magic, it's possible to say that it is a force-creation effect that uses fire. In the same sense, you could have an iceball, or an acidball, or whatever. It's the same base category of spells (force-effect, or evocation, or whatever you may want to call it) that uses different elements in it. This principle can now be applied to almost all magic there is, from divination using vision, to creation using iron (making an iron wall), or animation using plants, to have trees come to life and help out in combat.
Of course, such a system is not perfect (perfection anywhere is unachievable), but it's my preferred system to use for universal magic. And not only universal, but this type of design can also be applied to setting-bound systems, in which case the list of functions and elements can be adjusted to fit the setting.
So here just a bit on magic systems. It's an exciting topic, and I'll most likely post more on that, but for now, I'll leave this be. Until my next post,
Qi
No comments:
Post a Comment