Poll: Magic: How does it work best?

[DustyDrB]

I'm a fan of fantasy. Well...I'm mostly a fan of fantasy. The one that that often drags it down for me? Magic. It's probably one of the first things people think about they think of fantasy, but to me it is often the thing that breaks the fiction.

Why do I hate it so much? I just feel it often becomes a crutch for the writers. It's a cop-out. A major plot point can occur, with incomprehensible events at its core. And the explanation might often be little more than that old saying: "A wizard did it".

This is something that bothers me in the Dragon Age universe, and not just the first game. If they need some big terrible even, either current or historical, they will often just blame it on magic (and especially blood magic). No more explanation needed.

To contrast this, I present a book series that does the opposite. Patrick Rothfuss' Kingkiller Chronicles (consisting so far of two books: The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear) bounds magic in principles. The main character learns the arcane arts, but the process of learning sounds more like a physics or chemistry lesson than typical magic. There's cause and effect. There are limitations, and crossing those limits can mean ending your life in the process. And to me, this is far more interesting than unbound and unlimited power. How do arcanists accomplish their goal within the rules of their magic? Do they take a chance, pushing themselves to the brink of death to do what needs to be done? It prevents a constant state of problem-solving. And it leads to more intriguing moral dilemmas.

So which of these, if either, do you prefer? Do you prefer your magic to be unbound, infinite power only limited by the will of the one wielding it? Or would you rather it be more systematic, a more limited magic that forces the ones use it to think and execute carefully? Or is it neither? Perhaps you've experienced something better than both ways, or you prefer a balance.

 

[Renco van der Tang]

I think magic is most interesting when it's subtle but powerful, like the magic in Song of Ice and Fire. Though the overt kind of magic found in, say, the Forgotten Realms setting is also interesting because it's something people can depend on, so it makes lots of new occupations and such possible that I think are interesting to explore in writing.

 

[DarkishFriend]

Reminds me of alchemy from FMA. I always like the idea of magic that is grounded a bit by physics or nature.

 

[BangSmashBoom]

I think magic is cool in fantasy, but I think it should like you said be limited to not made a character seem limitless.

 

[Smiley Face]

Not necessarily founded in the laws of nature a la what Rothfuss is doing (although that is awesome), but there should be rules. Boundaries that you lay down, and don't cross without explaining it well. Harry Potter kept pulling out new spells that totally changed the game - there were no rules, just convenience. It's okay if it doesn't conform to nature - it's MAGIC. But you lay down the rules, a good sense what can and can't be done, and then explore the consequences of living in a story where that's possible.

 

[Raddra]

I'm a fan of the wizardry, sorcery and warlock style magic in D&D. I like how it co-exists and yet is related.

I hate 'throw your arms out, yell and whatever happens in a flashy way' style magic. I like my mages to have limitations and to have to earn their art.

 

[DustyDrB]

Reminds me of alchemy from FMA. I always like the idea of magic that is grounded a bit by physics or nature.

I recently watched a few episodes of Fullmetal Alchemist, and its alchemy does have very similar rules to The Kingkiller Chronicles' sympathy (that's the word they use for that particular arcane art). Though sympathy is still not as powerful as alchemy. Not to say it isn't dangerous, though. That's pretty far from the truth.

 

[babinro]

Unrestrained - Once you're committed to implementing magic in your story. It feels wrong to place limitations on it's abilities and power.

I'm of the idea that magic should be able to accomplish anything in the world. The limiting factors would only come in the form of resources or a lack of knowledge needed to cast a given spell.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I love magic, but I agree that it should be grounded a bit and have clearly defined rules. I'm not saying they should go as for as to ruin the mystique of it by explaining EVERYTHING about it, but it should be grounded enough so as not to be used as all purpose plot insulation.

 

[Lionsfan]

Magic? How does it work?


Seriously though, I think if there's going to be magic in a medium, there should be some rules about how it works, and not just a giant Deus Ex Machina

 

[DoPo]

-comment-

That avatar. You just had to comment in this thread, didn't you?

OT: Well, I like my magic bound in principles. The problem is that that may not mean much if there are principles we are not aware of and as such "A wizard did it" is still a viable explanation. Smiley Face mentioned the Harry Potter series. And yes, it is an example. At one point a time travelling device pops up only to be used once ever - it's not even mentioned after that book. There are spells and magical potions/stuff that, although codiefied, still almost end up as deus ex machinas.

"A wizard did it" is not only for the unrestrained magical systems. Another example - the other Harry - Harry Dresden, manages to come against stuff even he didn't know before. Magic still technically works by the rules, it's just that neither the reader nor the protagonist knew exactly what the rules are.

It's still better if we get a satisfying explanation why or how something happened. A minor example, in the Dresden-verse, wizards live longer than normal humans. They can comfortably hit 100 years and go a bit beyond that (assuming they are not killed). It seems like a fairly normal thing - in lots of settings wizards live longer. In the Dresden-verse, it turns out that their bodies regenerate cells better (including cells that die of old age), so their bodies do live longer according to natural principles.

And another example - in the very first book (also the first episode of the TV series) somebody kills people with magic from afar. But the problem, from Harry's perspective, is that it's pretty much impossible to do this due to the immense amount of power it would require. And there is actually a reasonable explanation how a wizard manages to do it.

 

[The Funslinger]

Obviously it depends on the game or series I am playing/watching/reading, but I really like how magic is handled in GOT, for example. Theres still a few magical beings here and there but the series is very much grounded in reality. Not once does something happen because "magic lol".

Yeah, it's good. The Valyrian Steel weapons are a simple, grounded use of magic, and then there's the sheer amount of people being all "look at me! I are magical!" and a lot of them turn out to be blowhards.

The greenseers also possess a decent, grounded ability, albeit one that's got some very diverse uses.

Spoiler: only click here if you've read the books

I'll be interested to see how Bran's communicating through trees turns out. The guy was adamant he couldn't talk to his father or anything, yet Eddard and Theon have both heard him call out to them. I think it'll turn out just to be a feat of skill/magical strength. He wouldn't have placed that much emphasis on people hearing their names otherwise. Beyond that, I'd say the most undefined, potentially limitless ability demonstrated is the face changing by those black and white assassins.

 

[Jodah]

Predictable to a degree but anything you want. If you do the same actions, speak the same words, concentrate the same way, the effect should be the same. If you make a fireball on Tuesday and do the same thing on Thursday it should not be a tornado. However, you should also be able to develop new spells if you want. The pre-spell plague Forgotten Realms was the best imo. Post-spell plague there is too much that is unpredictable.

 

[RaffB]

Bit of both to be honest.

Dresden Files is one the best example of magic that I have heard of.

All of it follows rules, i.e. If you want fire, then you have to put in the energy, either from yourself or from your surroundings, then afterwards it behaves exactly like fire does normally. If you want it to stay around for longer, or start doing strange things, then you have to put a lot more effort in.

However, there are also types of magic in that series that aren't from this reality, so they behave as such. But, to use them is to go mad since your playing with stuff that isn't meant to be anywhere near you.

 

[alwaysrockon]

I know it may be crazy but I actually deeply love the way the Eragon series does magic. Like how if you can see a connection between water and a diamond, you could simply say "water" and make a diamond (well only if you had enough energy). I don't know, Harry Potters magic was wrong, and other series have done it well (although I don't actually like A Song of Fire and Ice's magic).

 

[The Funslinger]

Obviously it depends on the game or series I am playing/watching/reading, but I really like how magic is handled in GOT, for example. Theres still a few magical beings here and there but the series is very much grounded in reality. Not once does something happen because "magic lol".

Yeah, it's good. The Valyrian Steel weapons are a simple, grounded use of magic, and then there's the sheer amount of people being all "look at me! I are magical!" and a lot of them turn out to be blowhards.

The greenseers also possess a decent, grounded ability, albeit one that's got some very diverse uses.

Spoiler: only click here if you've read the books

I'll be interested to see how Bran's communicating through trees turns out. The guy was adamant he couldn't talk to his father or anything, yet Eddard and Theon have both heard him call out to them. I think it'll turn out just to be a feat of skill/magical strength. He wouldn't have placed that much emphasis on people hearing their names otherwise. Beyond that, I'd say the most undefined, potentially limitless ability demonstrated is the face changing by those black and white assassins.

I actually havent read the books (yet) so I wont be reading that, hehe. Thinking about ordering them but I dunno man... I can see myself reading all 4 books, being hyped up for the next one, and then Martin dies from a heart attack or something.

Well, I would prefer it if you could refrain from killing George R.R. Martin with your cursed luck... really though, they're very engrossing books, with one of the most expansive plots I've ever seen.

And the next book's been in production for a while, so it'll probably get released before you kill him

 

[Heronblade]

Principled.

I generally think of magic as being a distortion of the normal laws of physics within an area that don't actually break the primary rules, causing heat energy to flow against its normal gradient in order to form a fireball for example (as opposed to creating energy from nothing). The greater the distortion, the greater the resistance, with the spring-back once it is released possibly releasing a great deal of energy in unpredictable ways if caution is not used. One would have to deal with other effects as well, such as finding a safe manner to collect the heat used for the earlier fireball (I can imagine quite a few would be apprentices being found frozen solid after making the attempt)

 

[nuba km]

I always think magic needs to have some rules and limits other wise plot holes the size of the milky way can start forming.