🚀 go-pugleaf

I posted this a couple of weeks ago, before this thread started, but no
responded - perhaps it never made it out to the net.  So here it is
again . . .   I had called it META RPG: Magic Systems in General or
something like that . . .

----------------

Let's examine what folks want in a magic system.  Everyone who plays a
genre with magic can play this game, and it will be useful to both
FUDGE and the net.rpg folks.

Here's what I want:

1) An alternative to a list of spells.  If some folks want a set list,
fine: they can have one.  But any system I play has to have the other
option available.  In my experience, a set list of spells leads to
stagnation, no matter how large the list.

2) Some way to encourage the magician not to use the same spells all
the time.  This can be either carrot or stick, though carrot is nicer.
(Example of stick method: "You lose some sanity for casting the same
spell twice in one gaming session."  Example of carrot method: "+1 to a
spell you haven't cast in this gaming session yet.")

3) No automatic magic results, at least for humans, except for magic
items.  While I fully admit this is not in keeping with magicians of
legend, it makes for a better game, I believe.

What else should be here?

Next topic:  what types of magic to emulate?  Well, what types have you
got?

As I see it, there are:

1) Real magic, as studied by anthropologists and people like Bonewitts.
2) Legendary magic, as told in myths and legends from around the globe.
3) Folklore magic, a subset of the above that tends to be simplified
   and even purified.
4) Fictional magic, which can be broken down into at least two subtypes:
	4A) Pre-RPG
	4B) Post RPG

Taking them one at a time:

1) Despite the fact that Bonewitts wrote a game book based on this, I
find it's not really suitable for gaming.  These rituals are very slow
and elaborate, often requiring a lot of paraphernalia.  Bonewitts
splits magic up into over 20 separate laws.  Frazer (1890) only used
two: the Law of Contagion and the Law of Similarity.  Mauss (1903)
renamed the Law of Contagion the Law of Contiguity, and added a third:
the Law of Opposition.  These can be summed up as:

Law of Contiguity:  Each one is the whole and the whole is in each
one.  This allows affecting a subject if you have his fingernail
clippings, a piece of hair, scrap of clothing, etc.  Subjects can be
non-sentient, even inanimate: you can grow a whole tree from a piece of
bark; you can recreate a house from just a nail.  It also allows for
augury: the whole pattern of the universe is contained in the pattern
of the stars, or in the way your tea leaves settle in your cup, or the
draw of tarot cards, etc.  Further uses of this law include creating a
fireball from a small flame, or Death from a bone, or poison a man by
poisoning the food he left on his plate, and so on.  You can become a
different shape if you have part of it: wearing a bear skin turns you
into a bear, for example.

Law of Similarity:  Like produces like; like cures like.  This law
allows you to fashion a likeness of someone or something, then affect
it by acting on the likeness.  Burning a doll is a good way to kill
someone in this type of magic.  Likewise, grinding a powder from a
sword that wounded you, then drinking a potion containing the powder
will cure you.  Lighting a small fire will create a bright light, and
so on.  (Yes, I know that's the same result as you can get with the law
of Contiguity.  This fact didn't bother primitive magicians, though.)

Law of Opposition:  Opposite drives away opposite.  To beat back a
flood, light a match and chant the appropriate ritual.  Goodness drives
out evil: food (life-giving substance) spread on a wound will drive out
the Death it represents.  And so on.

Oddly enough, Mauss and Frazer feel that it doesn't matter whether the
agent that accomplishes the magical task is a summoned entity or some
hidden controlling power of nature: that's just the vehicle, and is
irrelevant for their discussions.  Bonewitts splits summoned entities
into two different categories, however.

2) Legendary Magic: this is also tough to game.  Usually these are very
powerful magicians, or heroes who have been granted one or a few gifts
(sometimes internal powers, sometimes merely magic items) who never
seem to fail in their magic.  At least, the stories don't mention it.
They cast spells and the spells happen as they wish.  Magic is limited
to a few, but is very potent.  Sometimes a hero will have only one to
three powers, but they will still be powerful: flight, invisibility,
and a sword that never misses are examples.  Some stories do involve
limited number of uses: three wishes, or you may become invisible three
times only, etc., but that makes it rough for gaming with an on-going
character.

3) This is the toughest to game: Magic is usually just "wishes come
true," or involves never-failing items or otherworld companions (often
animals) who advise the hero exactly how to behave.

4B) Out of order, but I wish to dispense with it immediately: I don't
like most of it.  It seems to be influenced either by roleplaying games
directly, or by other literature that is influenced by roleplaying
games.  The magic in it bears little resemblance to any of the other
categories, and seems mostly derived from games.  Obviously, there are
exceptions - those I'll simply lump in with 4A.

4A) Here's where it gets interesting, to me.  This includes Arthurian
literature, the Charlemagne cycle, Ariosto, Spencer, and many later
authors such as MacDonald, Dunsany, Tolkein, Howard, deCamp, Morris,
Leiber, Kutner, Moore, Vance, Anderson, Bellairs, LeGuin, etc., etc.

The advantage of fictional sources instead of legendary is that
magicians are more human in fiction: they have flaws, they sometimes
fail.  Sometimes the magic doesn't work, which is very nice for gaming
purposes.

I've blathered long enough - time to let someone else say something.
-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu