There is a scene that sticks with me from childhood from the D&D cartoon series. Dungeon Master (the little bald dude) is teaching the principles of magic to the cowardly cavalier. The lesson is that summoning a spring of water to quench your thirst deprives another part of the world of water.
This seems an important moral about maintaining balance in a self-contained system. But of course, it has nothing to do with how magic actually works in the D&D role playing game. I’ve never read a version of the create water spell that mentions its contribution to desertification. But could magic in an RPG work more like this?
My last post started to look at the idea of magic as science, in terms of being a system with internally consistent laws. I’ve since discovered that this idea has already been explored in considerable depth within other games and literature. Below, I’m going to look at some examples and compare these with the D&D approach.
Magic as Real-World Science
Arachnibot on Discord linked me up to a super hero RPG Sunset City Heroes that takes the laws of physics very seriously. A hero’s power still represents a break with scientific principles, but it does so in a very specific way.
Much consideration is given to the secondary ramifications of the power in accordance with real world physics. So super strength necessitates enhanced durability to avoid breaking your own bones; having actual laser vision would melt your own eyeballs.
D&D enters this territory when it begins to consider the volume of a room in casting a fireball, in calculating its blow back effect. But generally speaking, the type of judgements the DM makes around spells are more common sensical than requiring a physics degree. For the flight spell, the rules are not accounting for the secondary effects of altitude sickness etc.
Such attentiveness to science feels more appropriate in a contemporary setting, where the understanding of scientific laws is equivalent to our own. In a fantasy setting based on medieval times, it feels more fitting to be dealing with fire, water, air and earth than the periodic table. But a scientific treatment of magic is still possible in fantasy, when it is considered as operating within its own internally consistent laws.
Campbellian Fantasy
John W. Campbell was the editor of the American Unknown fantasy magazine that ran from 1939 to 1943. Campbell went by the principle that magic is just a form of science, with its own laws. Many authors were influenced by this approach, some of whom had written for Unknown (as this article discusses). I’m currently reading Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp’s The Roaring Trumpet story, which illustrates Campbell’s philosophy well.
The hero Harold Shea of The Roaring Trumpet is a modern day psychologist who travels to a Nordic inspired fantasy world. Whilst in this setting, there is a clear break with our scientific laws, as the matches and gun he brings with him simply refuse to operate. But Shea becomes capable of magic, as soon as he begins to employ it consistently with the new world’s laws.
There are two main laws of magic functioning in the book (p11).
“The Law of Similarity may be stated thus: Effects resemble causes. It’s not valid for us, but primitive people firmly believe it. For instance, they think you can make it rain by pouring water on the ground with appropriate mumbo jumbo”
“the Law of Contagion: Things once in contact continue to interact from a distance after separation.”
The authors did not invent these principles, which reflect real world historical attitudes towards magic. What feels unusual is allowing the hero to employ them without restriction. They are not merely reflected in existing, prescribed spells, but general laws for the character to manipulate as they see fit.
What stands out to me in the book is how immediately powerful this approach makes the character in the context of the setting. At one point, Shea must urgently reach a distant mountain peak. He does so with simply a feather and a broomstick. In accordance with the Law of Similarity, a feather is used in flight, which is the power he manages to convey to the broom with a simple made-up chant.
Shea’s companions in the books are for the most part Nordic demi-gods. His use of these simple magic laws immediately places him on an equivalent level of power, leaving the gods suitably impressed. This is perhaps a cautionary note on using such laws freely in an RPG where we don’t want the players wielding god-like powers.
In-world Balance vs Gameplay Balance
As hinted at earlier, magic in D&D has little to do with game world balance, in terms of universal laws. The primary consideration in spell design seems the wizard’s role in an adventuring party, balanced against those of other classes. The spell list of B/X edition of contains quite a number of utility spells of use in dungeon setting such as Knock. But they seem balanced in terms of not being too useful, in terms of negating all practical challenges posed by a dungeon.
There is perhaps something to be said for making game play balance a concern in spell design. The 5e spell Create Or Destroy Water specifies that the water must be in an "open container". As 60% of the human body is water, destroying 10 gallons of it might be a devastating offensive spell if directed at an enemy. The “open container” stipulation seems specifically designed to counter such a use. In terms of the game world, this seems a somewhat arbitrary feature of magic’s functioning, but maybe still a desirable nerf if we are prioritising gameplay balance.
Shea’s companions in the books are for the most part Nordic demi-gods. His use of these simple magic laws immediately places him on an equivalent level of power, leaving the gods suitably impressed. This is perhaps a cautionary note on using such laws freely in an RPG where we don’t want the players wielding god-like powers.
In-world Balance vs Gameplay Balance
As hinted at earlier, magic in D&D has little to do with game world balance, in terms of universal laws. The primary consideration in spell design seems the wizard’s role in an adventuring party, balanced against those of other classes. The spell list of B/X edition of contains quite a number of utility spells of use in dungeon setting such as Knock. But they seem balanced in terms of not being too useful, in terms of negating all practical challenges posed by a dungeon.
There is perhaps something to be said for making game play balance a concern in spell design. The 5e spell Create Or Destroy Water specifies that the water must be in an "open container". As 60% of the human body is water, destroying 10 gallons of it might be a devastating offensive spell if directed at an enemy. The “open container” stipulation seems specifically designed to counter such a use. In terms of the game world, this seems a somewhat arbitrary feature of magic’s functioning, but maybe still a desirable nerf if we are prioritising gameplay balance.
On the other hand, the highly prescriptive spells of D&D can serve to stifle creativity. The Knock spell waves away the obstacle of a locked door. A more interesting solution I saw online was to pour water in a lock and use a spell to freeze it, breaking the lock as the ice expands. Spells with more general application can serve to reward such clever play, which feels in keeping with "Old School" gaming principles.
Enabling Laws vs Constraining Laws
The two Campbellian laws of magic above are what I would call enabling laws. There are principles that make things possible in the fantasy setting that would not be in the real world. Given that a major concern with magic is making characters too powerful in shaping the world, such laws would require careful consideration when used in an RPG.
On the other hand, laws could be applied to magic which constrain the effectiveness of all spells. This could be something like magic only works at night time, with some kind of logic as to why this happens in the context of the setting. Such laws can allow the design of individual spells to be more powerful, in the knowledge they only work in certain circumstances.
A constraining law that appeals to me is the requirement of material components for spell casting. For this to be an interesting constraint, the components cannot be so commonplace as to be freely available (grass or air are bad choices). Making component something commodifiable, that can readily be assigned a value, begins to integrate them into the economy of a setting.
The game idea I am currently working on has mercury as a universal component, usable for all spells. This dispenses with the fiddlyness of counting out your bat fur. Mercury also has a rich real world history in terms of the cooking of cinnabar and its associated health effects. There would be social consequences of mercury being a sought after resource for the exercise of power.
Summary
I am beginning to feel “magic as science” could be something of a rabbit hole, in terms of developing it into a game world system. I do like the idea of there being a few simple laws of magic, for players to creatively employ. But a priority with magic for me is to stop characters from becoming too powerful. Widely applicable, enabling laws seems a step toward making the game world a malleable plaything.
Enabling Laws vs Constraining Laws
The two Campbellian laws of magic above are what I would call enabling laws. There are principles that make things possible in the fantasy setting that would not be in the real world. Given that a major concern with magic is making characters too powerful in shaping the world, such laws would require careful consideration when used in an RPG.
On the other hand, laws could be applied to magic which constrain the effectiveness of all spells. This could be something like magic only works at night time, with some kind of logic as to why this happens in the context of the setting. Such laws can allow the design of individual spells to be more powerful, in the knowledge they only work in certain circumstances.
A constraining law that appeals to me is the requirement of material components for spell casting. For this to be an interesting constraint, the components cannot be so commonplace as to be freely available (grass or air are bad choices). Making component something commodifiable, that can readily be assigned a value, begins to integrate them into the economy of a setting.
The game idea I am currently working on has mercury as a universal component, usable for all spells. This dispenses with the fiddlyness of counting out your bat fur. Mercury also has a rich real world history in terms of the cooking of cinnabar and its associated health effects. There would be social consequences of mercury being a sought after resource for the exercise of power.
Summary
I am beginning to feel “magic as science” could be something of a rabbit hole, in terms of developing it into a game world system. I do like the idea of there being a few simple laws of magic, for players to creatively employ. But a priority with magic for me is to stop characters from becoming too powerful. Widely applicable, enabling laws seems a step toward making the game world a malleable plaything.
In a future post, I intend to move away from a systematic approach to magic. I'm instead going to look at grounding spells in the game world through their individual design, perhaps using a few constraining principles. The idea will be for spells to manipulate existing elements of the game world, rather than evoking new effects from no where.
Interesting post - for someone who leans heavily into the "because magic doesn't have to make sense," I found myself nodding along frequently. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDelete