The Four Universal Types of Magic Systems
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июн 2024
- It's here. The time has finally come for us to talk about the types of magic systems. So in this video, we're going to talk about the four. Yes, four universal types of magic systems. We're also going to dig into the details so that you can really tell them apart. And we'll analyze 4 popular systems so that we can assign them to their corresponding type of magic.
I’ve developed a magic-building tool called The Magic System Blueprint and is designed to quickly give you a holistic understanding of any magic system. I’m currently running a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo for it and you can check it out at:
www.indiegogo.com/projects/th...
Chapters
00:00 Intro
00:50 Definitions (add video card in the top right
01:48 The Four Types of Magic
02:19 Hard/Soft Axis
04:31 Rational/Irrational Axis
07:12 Types of Magic Defined
08:35 System Examples
11:19 Why This Matters
11:50 Outro
Check out my Magic System Workbook! --- amzn.to/3bxsFIr
Great video. More people should talk about the rational irrational scale.
Harry Potter magic I’d say is hard-irrational as every spell has a hard rule but there’s no logic to why certain spells do certain things & there’s no way to extrapolate or come up with a new spell.
It can certainly be approached that way. I consider it to be soft because of the scope of the magical world.
While we see a great number of spells and magical creatures over the series, these are only a fraction of the number that actually exist. This large difference between what we know and what exists is what makes it a soft magic system to me
If you want to read something really fun on this topic, check out the fan-fic "Harry Potter and the Principles of Rationality." The premise is "what if HP was hyper rationale and the world worked accordingly?"
I've been learning programming. So far, it's a soft but generally pretty rational magic system. I've found that C# is a bit less rational, and Ruby is a bit more.
My favorite magic system of all time is the one of Norse mythology and Norse paganism.
Everything in the world is connected to an energy field or a force called "megin" (from the Old Norse word for magic). Megin is the devine power that gives everything life. Every thaught, decision and action affects this energy, which in turn affects you back. For every action there is an equivalent reaction from the devine, the "magic". This system is very logical, thus making it a rational system. It's very surprising how this can be so logical given it's over a thousand years old.
The gods themselves are the imbodiments of the consepts of what the magic can do.
Great video! It was really helpful!
Glad you liked it :) Consider checking out The Iron Druid Chronicles by Kevin Hearne. From the way you talk about the Norse Mythology, I think you might like the series
Wait, really? where can i look to go more into this? this sounds really interesting!
No, not really. Actually, "megin" doesn't mean magic at all, it means might, strength, vital essence and comes from the same PIE root that gave the word might in English. The whole concept is "matter ok megin" which theologically means something like "vital essence and destiny". The megin is the part of the divine principle present in every human being that is both what he is destined to be roughly like Nietzsche's "become what you are" and also the flow of life that animates the body, it is what is sacred in humanity. Thus, this megin has to be fulfilled, it's bearer can not dishonour it because it would be an offense to the Gods, the divine principle, their very being and also their lineage. Because, yes, it basically lies in the blood inherited from their ancestors. So the bearer should make it "grow in strength" by accomplishing it and if their life is a failure, either their "matter ok megin" was feeble, either they failed to accomplish it. And their concept of "dishonour" was very different from our modern christian-based one. For example : if one kills someone of your family and you don't retaliate, you are dishonouring your megin and proving your lack vital essence by not spilling the offender's blood. And his blood means the blood of his family included as well. In short, his megin triumphed over yours because you weren't worthy enough or hadn't a great megin. That's why the sagas are full of vendettas or "faide" to use a germanic term.
It's a fucking tricky concept, hard to apprehend and certainly not as simple as "magic".
The actual generic Old Norse word for magic is "seidhr".
If you want to learn more on the subject, you need to read scholars who have studied the Eddas, especially the Poetic Edda, and the sagas.
I would gladly recommend you one that has specifically worked on that subject but he isn't translated in English. But I think for an anglophone, Jackson Crawford is a good starter, btw he has a RUclips channel.
This is the first I have heard of the rational/irrational angle
I am attempting to write something, my system is going to be on the extreme end of both hard and rational. If there was one thing I always wondered when reading or watching fantasy magic, it was definitely the "how" of magic. I can simply enjoy something but after it's over I just ponder.
I think the Wheel of Time comes quite close as far as getting into the nitty gritty of magic. The One Power certainly is documented well in the series. It is shown how they access it, what it is composed of, where it comes from, some hard "what you can't do" limits and yet some innovation still occurs. With any magic battle, if you know the participants and what they have you could gauge who would might win.
The real soft part of WoT is the artifacts, made from a previous age of "modern magitek" they can seemingly do anything. Ter'angreal, like, one controls weather, some are light bulbs, some make portals to other worlds, it is wild.
I like knowing the intricacies of what one must do in order to make magic function, don't ask me why I am like this, Lol, I just am.
And the way I am going, I might have an actual text book on my magic before I actually begin writing.
Nothing wrong with that! It's all about understanding yourself and what you need.
As someone who wrotepver 75,000 words on his magic system alone before even ATTEMPTING to write fiction, I get you :P
And then there's Divine Throne of Primordial Blood, which has a hard rational magic system but the main character is a research maniac. So at the beginning if you were aware of how complex the magic system actually was then you would consider it a soft magic system, but because of people's limited knowledge of how much they don't know it always feels like a hard magic system.
Sounds right. These four types are just a foundation to build from. I find it endlessly fascinating how people tweak and manipulate the different aspects in their stories
Is divine throne of primordial blood good?
@@PeacefulChaos2ya
My fave magic system is in the manga/anime 'Hunter × Hunter'. I'm pretty sure it's a hard rational system, as it's so complex you can read ESSAYS on how it works and everything about it kinda 'makes sense'.
The same with the system in Animorphs; strict rules that are set out from the beginning and stories that go into creative ways to use these powers within the ruleset.
I haven't ready Hunter x Hunter, but Animorphs is absolutely a hard-rational system. I should have thought of that one! We know everything they can do and can apply logic and rational to the ways they can use it
I don't understand the Hunter x Hunter magic system at all. Especially the restrictions.
At face value, it is simple. You put a restriction on your ability and that makes the ability stronger, like sacrificing defence for offence. Kind of like a battlecruiser; basically a battleship that has thinner armour to make room for stronger engines. And that is how it works with some nen abilities. But Kurapika has an ability that only works against the Phantom Troupe and if he uses it against anyone else, it kills him. But it is not like they are not related to each other or use a common technique. They are just a bunch of people who work together, but Kurapika could still make a technique that only works against them. Is there like a nen god that enforces the rules, like The Truth from Fullmetal Alchemist? Who decides what is a restriction anyway? Like Neferpitou's surgery robot has the restriction it can not move, but Pitou can use it as an anchoring point, so it is actually a strength?
To use my battlecruiser analogy, that is like having an extremely powerful canon, but if the captain of the ship you are shooting at was not born at a day that starts with 't', the shell explodes in the barrel.
@@schwarzerritter5724 I see it as a micro-system set up by the user. The limitations are more of a way to integrate the commitment of the user to their ability (really it can integrate all kinds of narrative tools into the system). Neferpitou can use their ability as an anchor, but there's no choice in it, either they use the ability and can't move, or they move and can't use the ability. Situationally it can be useful, but that's only in specific contexts, in every other situation it's a weakness.
It's not that the barrel will suddenly explode if you shoot the wrong ship, but that you've chosen to have the cannons only function on that parameter and the failure condition is you 'providing proof' of your commitment to that condition. The limitation reduces the ways in which an ability can be used or puts the user at a situational disadvantage, the condition puts stakes behind your decisions. The biggest thing for what makes a restriction is the user's own desires and abilities. 'You can't kill yourself' isn't much of a restriction because almost nobody would want to kill themselves. 'You can't use this ability on anyone outside of this specific group of people' is a restriction because it means you're severely weakened when fighting anyone else. 'You'll die if you fail to uphold this restriction' is a powerful condition because it puts the user's life in their commitment to their decisions.
Not sure if this explained it well enough, I can get why it'd be hard to understand.
@@schwarzerritter5724 Kurapika enforced the restriction on himself. Specifically he put the same restriction on himself he can put on phantom troupe members. "Don't lie or this will killyou." For him it's just "If I use this against a non-phantom troupe member I die." The pay off is that the ability is basically an instant win, if it hits. As for what makes something a restriction, I'd say if it's a downside in most situations, or at least in more situtionas than it is an advantage in, it's a downside.
In fact, I think Hunter x Hunter is "softer" than we think. It's true the basic applications are kinda hard (because applicattions are very descriptive) but "Hatsu" makes it a completely different beast.
Even if we know the basic categories and we can anticipate some stuff, each power is vastly different from each other, and that is not taking into consideration things like "nen beasts" which has absolutely not been explained, as well as the dark continent.
These things gives it a sort of "Stargate" example, because with the introduction of Nanika and the Quimera ants, we realize the authors "lies" a bit about the fact of all of it being "perfectly logical" also.
I think that's the most fun of Hunter X Hunter. You have a sense of "control" over the basics, but it is also a "lie" that we really know what is going on.
Still 100% recommended lecture
im still figuring out my magic system here but from the video ..i want it to be in soft rational.
Very cool. The soft-rational quadrant is an interesting space where more systems fit than one might expect
I have a third axis I sort my magic systems by - the degree to which they violate physics.
Like, can you violate causality? Can you violate conservation of energy? Can you remove entropy from a system? Can you transmit information faster than light?
I made one system of magic, low on the scale, which was sorted into different schools based on where they got their energy. There were the lightning wizards who went around with huge batteries on their back, the biomancers who were overweight so they could draw on their fat deposits, the illusionists who were near-useless at night, the fire wizards who went around with gasoline to set everything around them on fire if they needed power...
In my favorite home-made system, higher on the scale, wizards store up on anentropic mana, and can just get their energy from leeching heat from their surroundings or something, so they get sorted into schools based on methodology and effects. What I like about it is that the elementalist blowing-shit-up magic is one school out of eight, and the rest of them have to get _creative_ if they want to do damage. (That, or multi-class.)
That sounds really cool!
That's a good way to look at it. I generally approach that aspect by exploring how natural and normal the magic feels within the setting, but your way works well too
What about if a magic system is presented as the physical laws of the setting, with characters merely being able to use their magic by taking advantage of those laws?
@@DrakusLuthos sounds like it would be on the end that doesn't violate physics since it's taking advantage of what's already actually possible
Just last week, I broke this axis into a ladder for use in a TTRPG game, so that my players would be able to predict whether or not their actions would work. It's a FATE game, so it only has 4 steps on the ladder, where step four is a blank check, but it's useful. Prior to making this, I was judging everything in my head based on the same concept, and my players were getting upset because "that's too magical for you to break with your flying kick" didn't make sense to them.
This is a really useful video, thank you. I have been reading Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. I find this very interesting because the magic system seems very rational combining elements in weaves of varying complexities to achieve effects. On the hard/soft axis, I am slightly less sure where to place it because it seems to depend on which groups are using magic, ranging from Wilders who have had no magical training and are operating purely on instinct (very soft), to Aes Sedai who have undergone a very formal training process of how to use elements and weaves (slightly harder) and then onto The Forsaken, who comment more than once that Aes Sedai are weak and ignorant compared to themselves because The Forsaken have access to magical knowledge from the previous age of the world when magical knowledge was more advanced(much harder). Yet even the Forsaken are sometimes surprised by the magical innovation displayed by Rand Al'Thor, the Dragon Reborn. Then there are the groups such as the Aiel Wise Ones, the Atha'an Miere sea folk Windfinders and the Seanchan who all have access to limited, but still frequently powerful magic that I am not sure where to place on the axis. I am working on a system to embrace this roughly based on the Legend of the Five Rings RPG where player characters with magical talent can use their individual ring scores to attempt basic magical effects. As they gain experience and either training or intuition, they can learn weaves combining different levels of each element. If they rely too heavily on intuition, this will increase the chances of a magical mishap which will swiftly become increasingly dangerous as they develop more potential.
Can you suggest where this would fit on the soft/hard axis overall, please? Your advice would be much appreciated.
Full disclosure: I am not very familiar with the magic in Wheel of Time. That said, I think it falls on the softer side of the spectrum from the READER perspective.
For an Aes Sedai, it may be a hard rational magic system because of all there training, but we in the audience don't know everything they do
The other thing to bear in mind is that this can change over time as people learn more about the magic and discover all it's quirks and patterns.
I hope that helps
"Superman is hard, and irrational."
Oh I think we've all been 'there' before. :P
On a more serious note, I've been working on a system for an original setting that would land somewhere in the region of 'core of a collapsed star that is also a flat earther despite being a literal celestial object.' on your chart; so getting on the harder/basket case-ier side of the spectrum.
So far I've completed the framework for like half a dozen systems, except it was all just in the one system, which I retconned over and over again until it was so lacking in any focus or theme that it became the simulacrum of nutrient paste-magic systems; technically a very decent option, still I'd rather take a suppository.
rofl! Amazing description
Did the video help you figure out what direction to take it? What's your next step with your magic system?
@@themagicengineer5314 Actually it did, yes; the next step is to separate what systems won't exist happily along side each other or don't compliment each other enough to justify the added bloat and put them aside for use in another campaign (..today in: 'the lies we tell ourselves'...) or to serve as fodder for when the compulsion to edit something to death overwhelms me.
As for the remaining systems I figure they can be the cores of magical progress and development for different ethnicities or species; the greater the dissimilarity between magic systems, the greater the geological isolation between the groups who wield them.
Keep doing what you do man, very much enjoy the content!
~doom
@@therealdoomsage Sounds like a good plan. And you can ALWAYS take the pieces you split off to build a new magic system. In fact, a topic I really want to get to someday is how we can layer magic systems on top of one another to make something completely new
@@themagicengineer5314 would love to hear about that. I have a habit of making more than one magic system for story ideas. Knowing how to layer them would be so useful.
*3rd axis: It can also be useful to distinguish between low and high magic*
Shadow of the Colossus would be a low magic setting, as magic is used sparingly and seems like a rare capability.
World of Warcraft would be a high magic setting, where entire cities run on magical abilities/technologies.
LotR, esp. by the books, would perhaps be low magic. Magical creatures may be around and about, but they behave largely like creatures and animals, not spitting fireballs freely.
Harry Potter would certainly be high magic.
Magic is either scarce and diminished in impact, or it's extremely accessible and commonly used.
That and more is exactly what gets covered in The Magic-System Blueprint! What you're talking about there is what I call Prevalence. Ther's several more aspects to consider as well, like Ease of Use, Source, and Flux.
But also sometime,The Magic Play really important role in the story,but we only see it at the climax and cause huge impact
Underrated channel
Great video. The two axises of magic are fascinating and informative.
My favorite magic system is…the Force. It’s probably a soft-irrational system.
Spot on! And the general technology of Star Wars is closer to Soft-Rational
Interestingly I think my world has 1 hard rational system (alchemy), 1 soft irrational system (old magic), and 1 hard, somewhat rational system (common magic). They intersect in certain ways and really flesh out the world. I’m not using it for a book but I might run a tabletop game in it
very nice! There's absolutely no rule saying you can only have one magic system :)
What kind of setting and system are you thinking of using?
I know this is a year after, but I like that you built a bit of a set to film in.
Thank you! I did a fair bit of research (and got overwhelmed more than once) coming up with the setups I use in my videos, so I appreciate the affirmation :)
I think that's why I don't like the magic in Harry Potter: apparently, I'm not a fan of irrational magic systems. I thought that it's a bit all over the place and missing something unifying, but I never could put it into words this well.
How do you feel about stories from Neil Gaiman like American Gods or Neverwhere? Those are often irrational systems and if they bug you the same way Harry Potter does, then you're probably right :)
@@themagicengineer5314 I haven't read anything by Neil Gaiman yet, but I plan to. The magic system probably won't stop me from liking the books, since Harry Potter is still one of my favourite series despite the magic system.
@@corvus_da Definitely a good test-run to confirm it's the Irrational portion that bothers you. Neverwhere is good and American Gods comes highly recommended by lots of people
Harry potters magic makes sense in its own world as much as quiddick makes sense as a real sport. Meaning none
You should read this book called 'Lord of the mysteries'.
It has a God-level power system where getting strong is not a good thing but being weak is not good either. The abilities are so common yet, they are turned into something so unique.
It is Victorian era, steampunk and elderitch horror story.
That sound VERY interesting. Who is the author?
@@themagicengineer5314 Cuttlefish who loves to dive. (pen name).
It even has a sequel 'Circle of Inevitability.'
LOTM 1 has 1400 chs available on webnovel or other online sites. Trust me, don't miss it.
@@themagicengineer5314 after completing it. I want to see your review, please!!!. it's a top-grade-quality novel.
Here's the PDF of the novel. drive.google.com/file/d/1EnmqZEuBK_vSyBf3AmwcRbGipm3knA6-/view?usp=drivesdk
Cuttlefish that love diving,It is CN novel,but it is an Masterpiece among that,and had been glorified by Online readere@@themagicengineer5314
I already knew of hard and soft magic systems *but this*, this clean explanation of rational to irrational was new to me. This clear explanation will help my session 0 so much, thank you.
But I'd love constructive criticism on my take (to all who might read this, all 3 of you lol) & I'll be using this world for years to come so no reply is ever too late!
Divine, faith & religious types fall under hard rational. Even certain runic tech or steampunk styles too. Magical machines can be explained by just taking them apart carefully and with a magical eye (like a "carpenter's eye")
Darker practices of faith or weaker gods (little "g" was intentional) might be closer to soft rational. Kinda discovering how to help make their faith stronger via certain sacrifices over others or weird practices to gain a boon "running naked in a forest, my gods like dis!" for example.
I've kinda lumped the irrational hard & softs together. Kinda explaining there functionality on ruined civilizations/forgotten knowledge but artifacts of bullshittery still exists & can be found. How hard or soft are these artifacts? Up to me :D
entirely up to you and how you want to present it. Lost artifacts often come across as more irrational simply because they can be so far beyond our understanding we can't predict or rationalize it. That's Clarke's Third Law in action
Really glad I came across your channel, I was gripped by inspiration recently and have been working to design a Table Top RPG and had zero ideas how to begin building a functioning hard rational magic system from scratch. Your videos have begun to clarify a path. It no longer seems impossible if still daunting.
Thrilled to have you here Chase!
That's awesome that you're working on a TTRPG. I LOVE RPG systems and it's something I've been exploring. Feel free to reach out if you have questions or want to talk through ideas. I've been hoping to work with more game developers
You can reach me at clark@crrowenson.com
im writing a book rn and for now, its soft rational. it'll slowly keep going to hard the more stuff I show :)
Perfect! That's a natural progression for magic to take over the course of a series. As a creator, make sure that the new things you add and show don't contradict anything else you've already established... unless that's you're goal, of course
Ohhhh this video is a BANGER! very clear and throughout THANK YOU!
So glad you enjoyed it! If you ever have questions of would like me to cover specific content, just let me know. Also, we've got a great community of people that's starting to form here and they might be able to help as well
Thanks. Enjoyed this immensely.
Glad to hear it! Don't hesitate to ask me questions or let me know if there's a topic you'd like to see me cover
Good Explanation, Now I get it, mine is Hard-Rational, and it’s inspired in Nen from Hunter X Hunter, and I want it to have everything explained and that the audience can predict what can be done and what are the limits.
Excellent! Something to bear in mind. When shooting for a hard-rational system, you will need to introduce the system in small bites and you might need a smaller, simpler system. Remember, the more there is to explain, the more effort and words it will take to bring it up to a hard magic system
Great video! I currently have 2 novels in progress, one is a sci-fi (space opera) with hard rational magic system, the other is an epic fantasy with soft rational magic system.
This video helped me have some clarity for how my story will be develope further in editing. Tysm for the free knowledge!
Id say the one im writing is soft-rational. There are a lot of cause and effect relationships happening that I know but the characters dont. Its basically the standard mana pool combined with animism. So everything has a mana pool since everything was created with magic or at least a few characters claim. Its mostly basic elemental but also light and darkness magic and a little bit of necromancy. The climax is gonna have some weird shit tho. Idk if it's super original but its gonna be weird
Hey, we're all about the weird stuff over here lol. You should definitely check out some of the videos on the blueprint, specifically where I talk about Perspective. i think that could be very helpful for where you're at
Ooo I've never heard of the rational/irrational system, but I love it! I also didn't expect the Stargate mention but as soon as you said it, it made perfect sense!
So glad it makes sense for you! It's one of the parts people want to fight about the most, for some reason
My magic system has two sides- Natural and Artificial. Natural is soft-irrational and Artificial is Hard(it can be Rational and Irrational). The story about the conflict between the two types of users.
I love that! It's so great to have conflicting factions centered around different schools/types of magic
I wanted to give you an up vote several times during this. Then I went down and... Oh, I've already up voted it. ^^;
Then you used SG-1 and I squeed.
I heard of Soft vs Hard magic spectrum, but I never heard of the rational vs irrational spectrum.
another spectrum I heard of is high vs low magic which speaks to the ubiquity of magic. Can anyone in the world weald magic, high magic system. Is magic only available to certain people born under a full moon with a particular blood type that have passed an arcane quickening, low magic system.
Then their is the strong vs week magic systems which speaks to the scope of magic. With the right training, can you make magic do whatever you wish, strong magic system. Is magic limited to only a few things no matter how much you try to make it do other things, week magic system.
Full disclosure, I got the concept of rational magic from the Mythcreants blog/podcast and then combined it with the other concepts
So, I started working on my magic system... It's mythological magic; gifts granted to the mortals by the gods. It's common place and some of the gifts are actually curses; and most gifts come at some kind of cost. I am figuring that this would be a hard-rational system because the natives of this world are used to these magical abilities. My issue is that I have brought in people from another world who use technology and believe in ... science. So I guess their technology is like magic to the natives and therefore is another layer or magic system.
I think I am on the right path... I've been reading the Magic System Blueprint and following the prompts. Thanks for writing it... it's been a godsend...
Thank you so much! I can't tell you how much it means to me to know it's been so helpful for you!
thx this is rly helpfull
Glad to hear it!
I should point out for the record, that I’m a science fiction fan as well as a fantasy fan, but from your description, it sounds like my webcomic project uses a soft-rational system, much like Stargate SG-1.
Outstanding! Let me know if you'd like me to talk more about soft-rational systems sometime and I can
@@themagicengineer5314 I’d be happy to explain the specific details of my soft-rational system if necessary.
However, I should clarify that technically both Stargate SG-1 and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, draw inspiration from Thor from Norse Mythology, and that I definitely think that the MCU also counts as a soft-rational system.
@@isaacthewebcomiccreator9750 If that's the definition that works for you, then run with it. All of this stuff is intended to be a frame of reference to help you understand and improve your own systems, not to be treated as dogma :)
Hey there! Here from @exolorepod! :D
What you're doing is suuuuper cool! Love it!
Can you do an analysis about the magic system of "Mahouka Koukou no Rettousei"? Cause it's super interesting as it is a tech-magic system...but would be super curious about your thoughts on it!
Thanks for the idea! I'll have to see if I can find some place to watch it (preferably subbed at 2x speed)
This is useful
So glad to hear it!
I have a lot of magic systems, faith is one, circle magic, rune magic, wizardry, witchery, cultivation, aura.
I've created an multiverse and i have an mechanic called "seeds of infinite", they are things that can become anything, anything at all, there was 13, one became a tree, that itself grew so much that became an universe, one became an castle that has infinite rooms and each room is kinda of an personal universe of the owner of said room, other became an vine that flowered 13 magical gourds that can reproduce any liquid that is put inside of them indefinitely and the other 10 are unused, i mainly use the tree universe, which was "engineered" by a higher existence, but it lost the control of the power of the seed as the tree roots started to devour the void outside of existence to sustain itself, its a tree so big that literally everything on the universe is beneath its branches, they are like golden veins racing the skies, there is no stars, the only glow comes from the tree and there is an constant aurora shining, its like its always night in this universe, there is no blue sky, the "daytime" is when the tree is glowing the most, it shines for about 16 hours and rests for 10, so their "day" has 24 hours, the universe is "flat" so there is little shadows, cuz the light is always shining from above, they don't have the concept of moons, stars, suns or anything like we do.
This universe was origally supposed to be just a "farm" in which a god would plant an seed of infinite in order to try to grow more seeds from the tree, so it was kinda of a "demi-plain" created by this god, it had a perfect balance in the elements which an state of the art elemental cycle to ensure that the tree would grow healthy inside the demi-plain, but the roots of the tree pierced through the barrier that shielded the plane from non-existence and the void, the roots started to devour the void, making the plain itself expand both in space and time, getting out of the control of the god, and an plain that is expanding is called an universe, therefore a new universe with the tree as its center was born.
Other cool thing is since the space itself is growing everywhere and new space is being created around the tree as it expands its universe, the "outer rings" of this universe are a bunch of islands made from the primordial plain that the god created before it started to expand, and the "border" of the universe is an mirror like wall that when you try to cross it you go to the other side, travelling to the opposite edge of the universe.
The animals and beasts that were born is this universe use rune magic in their skins, bones, blood vessels, antlers, etc. Can you imagine if there was a rune in which would give you power, even if by coincidence a animal developed this rune in his body he would have an enourmous advantage to anything that was "normal", so that is why every animal in this universe has runes in its body.
Sounds like you intentionally built it as a massive and overpowered universe. Sounds like a fun world to build/work in without having to worry so much about all of the consequences
@@themagicengineer5314
i particularly like my elves, they are a not the "keepers" of the forest, they hunt, they kill, they burn the forest, they cut the trees down and all in the name os aesthetics, they will chop the ugly tree, they will burn the ugly flower field, they will kill the short horned deer, so their forests are beautiful, they themselves are beautiful but because they are really strict on who reproduces in the colony, they have a system of "generational matriarchs and patriarchs" that will have kids as often as possible for a decade and these kids are given to other members of the comunity so that they can be raised as the children of that household, they have sex, its just that unlike humans that have to use medicine to stop their fertility, elves depend on a secret medicine so that the man and the woman can be fertile, without it their species would be gone, thats how long and how serious they took their eugenic society.
Hmm, so magic in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel mostly falls into soft irrational, because no one really knows how magic works, beyond a few spells they work out over the course of the story. And anytime Faeries start doing stuff, the only thing you know is that they could quite literally do anything, and they do not think like humans...it's pretty terrifying. Which is one of my favorite things about soft irrational magic: it can be amazingly beautiful and intensely terrifying at the same time.
I think my own magic system is...well, the one side is more hard rational; magic allows communication with plants and animals, and how strong you are is directly related to your physical size and skill level. Because I love the idea of tiny battle mages running around trying to cause famine or vermin infestations in the enemy camp rather than throwing fireballs or laying waste to armies. It amuses me.
But the other part of my magic system is far more soft rational. Everyone knows you can access spirits to make deals or ask favors, but every spirit is different, so getting one to notice you, let alone listen, is anything but scientific.
your systems sound like a ton of fun! And I agree with the soft-irrational magic. They are fantastic for invoking a sense of wonder and/or horror
Thanks for the perspective, really helped me understand something odd about magic spell casting vs magic items in Dungeons and Dragons. I started on 2nd ed and found 3rd ed on to have magic items that never felt as "magical" as 2nd ed and prior versions. Your point about the need of D&D to have a hard and known magical system for use and balance, but the older magic item creation was irrational and unpredictable with even vague rules let alone components. 3rd Ed and onwards the items felt industrialised and formalized, but gave me a feeling of annoyance as I lacked the vocabulary to state what was different.
If you want more of that openness and freedom, you should look into more narratively driven games like World of Darkness, Mage the Awakening, or Open Legend. Those might be a better fit
@@themagicengineer5314 Mage the Awakening is a great example of a magic system that is both Hard/rational and open and free. If you know enough about the rules of magic, you could do almost anything.
I'd say my magic system would be hard irrational. The details of where magic comes from, how it can be used and stored, and the limits of its application are all known, but the way people, for instance, make themselves invisible doesn't have any relation with how they see the future, etc.
Sounds like a hard-rational system to me :)
Black Mirror S1E3(memory revinder) -Hard rational system we know how it works and why it works
nice video
Thanks!
I love you, boy!
media.giphy.com/media/e5nATuISYAZ4Q/giphy.gif
I have an idea to use subatomic particles as an idea to be able to move, transform, heat up etc any type of object. Some of the downsides can include that an organism that's capable of this has to live inside your body, but there will be way more other ways to obtain magic in this system. Basically in this example the parasite takes over your nerves, which means you will always be in pain until you get used to it. However, you will immediately be able to feel the magic particles in everything, and with a lot of practice, your body might accept the parasite and you can unconciously communicate with it, making it do tasks for you like transmutate a type of material into another, but even tens of years of practice with this method of doing magic only makes you able to do simple things like oxidize a material, or maybe turn water in cells in a plant to make the plant grow, shrink and move it however you want. Some of these methods will have a set in stone idea of what you can and can't do, but I'm not that far at all.
I only just learned about this sliding scale thing, and it def gave me a lot to think about.
In the primordial soup of worldbuilding in my head, I'd have to say I have a soft-irrational system in place. One of the key examples of why is a specific character. He's bound to the life of the planet, and he cannot truly die. Even if his body is turned to dust, it will be reborn as it was before, rising from the ground like a stereotypical zombie, but with all memories in place.
How did he get bound to the planet? Why? How does he remember after becoming dust? Even he can't explain it, and he's *ancient*.
And then there's certain 'beings' out there that I call 'Aspects'. By any rights, they should not exist, but they do. If anything, they should just be a concept, and not something that can interact with the physical world and beyond. But they can. And yet, aware of it, they only rarely actually do so.
Excellent! Glad it's proving helpful!
Thank you. Useful video. It has helped clarify the journey on which my series will take the reader. A thread running through the series is 'WTF is magic?' - a question that has plagued me for 50+ years, ever since D&D was first published. Now retired and with the time write, I am finally ready to answer that question.
All story characters who discover magic for themselves find they can change their perception of time and move their perception around remotely - separate from their bodies.
This system will seem Soft+Irrational to the reader at first. As the series progresses and readers find out more, I think the system will start to appear Hard+Irrational. In the finale of the series, when the source of magic is fully revealed, the system will be exposed as the Hard+Rational system I know it to be.
Wish me Luck!
Typo correction:
All story characters who discover magic for themselves find they can change their experience of time and move their senses-perception around remotely - separate from their bodies.
Excellent! Being able to map out the progression like that is one of the biggest benefits I have found to using the Magic-System Blueprint and all it's various parts (like the types of magic grid).
Glad it was useful!
I have two stories with magic right now. I think the first one is confusing because there’s two types of magic. Magician magic and Fae magic. Magician magic is more soft rational while fae magic is hard irrational. Fae magic is an elemental magic with a lot of rules that they already know but I don’t know where it comes from, but when a fae dies, their magic is released into the world. The magicians utilize this magic and shape it to their will and the rules for this are a little unknown but I think readers would be able to make rational assumptions based off of what the fae magic does in the surroundings. So I don’t know quite where my magic system would fall because it seems to be smack dab in the middle and maybe a little complicated but I don’t know it’s a little strange I guess
My second stories magic system I think would be hard rational though. It has strict rules and everyone knows what they are and they can only use the magic by burning the calories in their body or sacrificing a part of their body if they don’t have enough calories
To me, this sounds like two separate systems that just happen to feed into one another. Can Fae magic do things Magician magic can't and vice versa? Or are they all the same results but with different mechanisms?
@@themagicengineer5314 yeah they can do things the other can’t
Then I think it's safe to say they are separate systems. You've got some connections, but that leaves you room to make one feel hard-irrational with the other being soft-rational without any real problems@@bluejaytay6030
@@themagicengineer5314 oh sweet
I like a concept I have for a magic system which would be inspired by the classical elements system.
Fire - Chi Energy user so think of like Dragon Ball Z.
Water - Psychic Energy user so basically Mob from Mob Psycho 100.
Air - Spirit Energy user so similar to Yusuke from Yu Yu Hakusho.
Earth - Beast Energy user so this would need explaining. The user could talk to animals, shapeshift into one so werewolf, or draw the power of them. Even evolve if you will like alter DNA and speed up the evolution of being human.
What type of magic system would you want it to be?
I want to create a Hard-Logical, I really enjoy giving readers the ability to predict o dream of using the system
when it works, it REALLY works. It's a huge part of what builds a fanatical fan-base
Im a new subscriber trying to make a good story!
I enjoyed this video I am I’m not sure what I’d use your categories for and while they are all encompassing, which is useful to attribute for a categorisation system that allows you to compare desperate phenomena, why does it help?
It might not help you. Not everyone works the same. For me, it helps me understand the strengths and weaknesses that are likely to come with the type of system I'm building. Ultimately, I believe should only categorize things as far as is useful
Actually, I disagree about the magic system of Tolkien. There is more than it meets the eye, but you have to go through more than one book. Gandalf, simply put, is a divine being, a Maiar. It is of the lesser orders of the divine, more akin to an angelic patron than a true wizard.
The scope of his powers is never explicitly said, but we know that he is the lesser of his order, and most of the time, he deals more with wisdom and experience than true flashy powers. We know that he is in mortal form, so he isn't exactly very powerful in strength or magic, but he is WISE. Very, very wise. We are talking at least thousands of years of experience, knowing all it is to know about the world, because he participated in its very creation. Sauron, in fact, its from the same order of beings than him, a Maiar, but more similar to the Valar, the "gods" of Tolkien (there is truly one god, but the Valar are the demiurgs of the world) because he uses his knowledge to create artifacts that uplift them. We know that Sauron has lost the ability to walk in spirit form, and he is bounded to a charred, diminished figure, very capable of being slain by mortals. About Gandalf, we know that his powers, in mortal form, are mere tricks and gunpowder, apart from being immortal and having more stamina than anyone. He can create lights and some fireworks, but not much else. His will, on the other part, is incredible: that's why he can deter the Balrog, another Maiar.
When he dies, his spirit goes back to the west, and recovers many of his demiurgic powers. He can heal and he can banish evil creatures by mere will and knowledge, he can decorporate and recorporate, being invisible in his spirit form. But he can't teleport, or conjure creatures by thin air, nor fly or shoot laser from his eyes. As he is from the order of Manwe, he has deep senses, and as he is thye bearer of one of the Elven rings, he can inflict courage and protection to the people he is surrounded with. His main power still is that he is very, very wise, as he remembers everything from the dawn of creation, but still can't make anything truly wondrous, at least not without diminishing himself (something most other named Maiar had maid, such as Sauron with the Ring or the Balrogs with their fires, or Melian and her belt of protection).
There is a lot more, but I think it is enough for now. But we know that there are things he cannot or will not do, such as raising the dead, teleport, projecting fireballs, or using powers like a superhero or a D&D wizard. There is a lot of memes about he being truly a Fighter with insanely high Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. There is a lot of rational thought about Gandalf and the other Maiar, although not a lot readily accessible.
Aside from these, it is true that the magic system is directly proportional to the reader's comprehension of it.
And how much of that do we know from the core trilogy alone? Everything you're saying is absolutely true from a perspective containing all of Tolkien's lore (which you clearly have a firm grasp on). My analysis is from the perspective of a casual reader that has only seen the movies and (maybe) read the books.
@@themagicengineer5314 yes, I know that as a casual reader of the three main books it is not readily accessible, but then it is not only known to Tolkien. Many of it is in the books (especially the return as a Maiar), and much more by reading the Silmarillion. But in the core books Gandalf seldom make any notorious spell, as he fights mostly sword in hand, and in The Hobbit it is clear that he uses gunpowder. I don't really remember when, but Gandalf says "I'm not a conjurer of cheap tricks", and it is more a wise man than anything else.
Thanks c;
You're welcome!
I think in the current game I'm making, the world's magic system is soft rational. The details go into the science of your cells collecting atmospheric mana and converting it to usable forms, then societies/evolution finding ways to store that mana for bigger uses.
However, the same magic system will be one of three(4 of you count technology or Earth mythology, 5 if you count both) magic systems available, and will be a rational magic system that becomes harder as the player progresses through understanding it. The energy system would be soft rational, as mechanically it's predictable, but it is canonically a videogame magic system created by a canonical character. The third, Tar, should be irrational soft, despite it having somewhat mechanical functioning. It's an alien eldritch substance that theoretically exists in all living things, but you canonically don't want to think about what it is.
Interesting. Are you talking about a video game or TTRPG game? If a TTRPG, do you plan on having the players learn more about the mechanics as they play through the campaign? How are you looking to manage this?
@@themagicengineer5314 A videogame actually. We have enough DMs in my circles.
@@rmt3589 Interesting. So then are all of these details going to be essential to play, or is that just if you want to get into the nitty gritty and optomize.
Some players will love that and others will just want a slightly easier, guided aproach so they don't have to troubleshoot as much. I'm somehwere in the middle with this kind of thing
Balancing this has been pretty difficult for what I'm writing. My magic system is incredibly rational because it's based on geometry. This means that it's wildly variable in hardness depending on, say, whether the reader understands Klein bottles and imaginary numbers.
Exposition helps to a degree, but not everyone is going to be able to keep up with the mathematical abstractions, so I'm having to simultaneously write as though it's hard and as though it's soft.
I think what will help you is exploring your magic from different perspectives. Its a big part of the Magic System Blueprint I've been working on. Here are some links that could help you with the idea and introduce you to the Blueprint
Links inbound; prepare yourself.
ruclips.net/video/IievN6OXQP4/видео.html
exolore.captivate.fm/episode/building-magic-systems-with-clark-rowenson
exolore.captivate.fm/episode/building-magic-systems-part-2
undercommontaste.podbean.com/e/the-magic-system-blueprint-an-interview-with-cr-rowenson-undercommon-taste-episode-48/
Whatever you're writing sounds.....frickin awesome. I'm not gifted in math but I love the cascading logic (once I can understand and internalize the rules, I am happy to just sit and work out math problems for forever just for the heck of it) so I would LOVE to read something using a magic system based on geometry as you describe.
I mean, I know I'm some rando online but like, I wouldn't mind giving that a read, if you felt up for that.
A great in-depth explanation. You're defining hard as simply what can the magic-user do?
Example: telekinesis
While your defining Rational as defining the limitations and costs of telekinesis
Example: You can only use telekinesis on objects you can physically lift and it drains you of happiness.()
This is a very interesting spectrum I think it's a bit confusing because the Hard and Soft doesn't really need another axis. I feel like Rational/Irrational can be swapped out for Hard/ Soft. How is Hard and Rational different to you? I'm curious.
Whether it's hard or soft is determined by how much knowledge you have. Whether it's rational or irrational is determined by how you can APPLY that knowledge. And yes, the more you know about a system, the more rational it will begin to feel (that's how our pattern-seeking brains work).
While they are connected, they are not the same thing.
Some people can likely get away with just following the Hard/Soft axis, but there are important distinctions between systems and experiences I have only been able to explain with the addition of the rational/irrational axis
@@themagicengineer5314 Ok. I understand now. Because some stories don't really fall under Hard or Soft but somewhere in the middle. This is where the second axis can help.
Question where would you say the wheel of time falls under?
I assume you've read or analyzed its magic system.
@@strawberryanimation9294 I have not made it through the Wheel of Time yet and it is on my list of systems to learn more about. From what I saw in the first book of the series, it seems to be a soft system and near the middle of the rational-irrational spectrum.
From what we've talked through, how would you classify the magic in The Wheel of Time?
@@themagicengineer5314 I’d say wot starts of soft irrational and as the series progresses, becomes hard irrational.
@@therockingvolbeat3630 that is fairly common, yes. It is much easier to do it this way than to try and make it hard-rational within the first five chapters
I do not like this formulation. I too use a Cartesian-like graph, but ‘irrational’ and ‘rational’ are synonyms for ‘hard’ and ‘soft’.
Simply out, Hard magic systems are usually formulated, and ergo could be ‘rational’ and soft magic systems are usually theorized and ergo could be ‘irrational’. Sanderson made this distinction as a prescriptive claim and thus his laws of magic follow. I find it odd to use another prescriptive claim for a Y Axis that is already very similar.
I personally prefer ‘Intrinsic’ and ‘Extrinsic’ for the Y Axis, mostly because it fulfills unique need each story tends to have.
>Stories that have magic as a personal power or ones that have it kind of like a law of nature.
>Stories that make distinction between personal ‘energy’ units as a conversion for the actual magic vs natural energy ‘forces’ that empowers for the actual magic.
>Stories that tend to have many nested, albeit similar magic systems. I think the best one I can maybe steel man your idea too maybe is Harry Potter. Wandlore and Wandless Magic have the same use case (do fun magic) but employ different strategies and even implementations. (Heavily Implied Wandless Magic is more of a talent while Wand Magic is more universal, sort of like a skill.)
>Stories that inversely make distinctions about magic systems that need to be studied, or ones you ‘just’ know would also fit your system and mind. But lets be honest, alot of magic systems blur the line. The Force and Force Sorcery in Legends immediately comes to mind.
>Also more common in Eastern Stories, but Stories where Magic Systems are sort of interconnected and form a shape that is not easily ‘graphed’ by one point, but multiple. Jutsu in Naruto is both Intrinsic and Extrinsic but Chakra is Intrinsic and all overall Jutsu’s are somewhat Hard. (Limited by Chakra Quantity, Control and Concentration as well Practiced Skill.)
If you like your system, you can do you. I think it has advantages in specifically stories or campaigns where ‘rational’ can be a synonym for ‘systemic’ and irrational for ‘chaotic’. It seems like that is what you are implying before I stopped half way. I also think it works for if you care no distinction of Cosmology and Power Systems, since some like Wheel of Time do make those heavy distinction as highly both Extrinsic and Intrinsic.
I think ‘power systems’ are not easily mapped with a single point, and I think you might broadly agree. If anything, alot of these are just really, really complex shapes. Either your system or mine will fall into that trap. It is not calculus, it is art. (Well, when I frame it like that it kind of us, but you get the idea.)
But I do love that background and sword! It is also a well edited video, so not trying to shame, just a sort of different opinion.
Keep doing what you love, take this with a grain of salt. ❤
Hey, if you've got a breakdown that works better for you, that's awesome!
Also, I really appreciate people that can state their own opinions without attacking the other stance and simultaneously accepting that other opinions are valid.
Keep being you! We need more attitudes like this online!
So, the RUclips algorithm would be soft-rational?
Lol. Debatable. I mean, is the algorith ACTUALLY rational and pattern driven, or is it all black magic and sorcery? I sure can't answer that question
I want to create magic system that start with hard rational system but spiralling into irrational the more Stronger the user became
Interesting. Sounds like you want to start with something like the Powder Mage trilogy or the low end of the power scale in Steel Heart and then ramp it up to something closer to Heroes or Superman
@@themagicengineer5314 more like Ritual magic with Material representation,and became more obscure the stronger the user
@@skyking4557 Ahh. I get you. So it starts very regimented but as you get better, you are able to forgo, replace, or ignore components of the ritual on the fly or completely with your own power?
@@themagicengineer5314 yeah,Also there's some Mechanism like if the ritual is known by many people,the user of ritual can extract small amount of mental Energy from the people that know about the ritual.the user can theorytically used the ritual without any cost if the ritual known by enough people
@@themagicengineer5314 i still in procced of figuring out the impact of many mechanism of this magic system
Ours is an imagination magic system. As in we can make whatever we want, but it has a physical toll on us the more imagination it costs. This isn't to say that doing the unthinkable is impossible, but the unthinkable is sacrificial.
Not sure where this falls, but soft rational, perhaps?
I like that. Definitely a soft system. It's placement on the rational/irrational access could depend heavily on presentation and how much real-world laws and understanding shape the magic itself
Breaking things down into smaller categories is very useful. After mulling on it for a few minutes, I really like your use of rational and irrational.
I don't like your use of hard and soft. In the three of your videos I've watched so far, it's amazing how much you've presented that I simply use different labels for. Normally, I think it's fine, good even, for different people to come up with different terms to describe the same concepts. I think, this time, you've made a mistake.
Hard vs soft are the labels used when putting a magic system on a single, linear spectrum. When doing so, being more rational makes something more hard, and being more irrational makes something more soft. These labels include your other labels, as well as what you're using them for, and a few other concepts. I would advise using labels like "clear" and "obscure" where you're currently using hard and soft. This would disambiguate your definitions from the more general and vague definitions that are already in use for the terms.
A few other fun axes are real vs unreal (what Elyandarin in his/her own comment describes as "the degree to which they violate physics"), consistent vs inconsistent (you can include that in rational vs irrational, or separate it to good effect) and technological vs phenomenological (whether characters can manipulate, or only experience it). There are so many more ways to categories magic systems, I'd list more, but then I'd be at this forever.
Your pair of axes are an excellent level of analysis for magic systems, especially for writing, as they relate directly to the reader experience. Well done.
Building a 3 system of category inspired by what ye said:
Technological vs phenomenon vs miracle (is it something that is intentionally created by the user, something that happens to/around the user, or something that the user suggests but has no control over?)
Whole vs modular vs integrated (is it a single system, multiple interacting systems that are unrelated, or a system with consistent sub-systems?)
Consistent vs inconsistent vs situational (are the things the system does consistent with one another, or completely arbitrary, or do they only relate to eachother in some cases?)
Predictable vs unpredictable vs variable (does it always act the same way, or never act the same way, or does it depend? Do you know if it will be predictable or not?)
Base 3s are a little difficult to wrap our minds around since humans in general are very binary minded but i always try anyways just for funsies. (plus it helps me get into the mindset of one of my species so i can write them :p)
Ever seen an aspect chart (i think they're called that, if not it's attribute or something but yeah)
@@orbismworldbuilding8428 That was a lot of fun to read. I think some of those still fit on a binary spectrum, with the third as a midpoint, but with some of them I can see how the third is different enough to make trinary worth it.
One theme I like to include in my magic systems is a triad of pairs, or a pair of triads. Ideally it's a set of six that's both of those depending on how you look at it. It's a basic pattern that's reflected heavily in the real world, since quarks and leptons are both set in it, and I'm suspicious of bosons.
Just thought I'd share that fun perspective with you in thanks for all your triads.
Thank you for the kind words and thoughtful response. My ultimate goal is always to build something that is helpful, so I'll definitely think about this and see if I can find some way to clarify it (either in explanation or in the terminology)
interesting. I'll definitely check out aspect charts to get a feel for what you mean
structures like that can be extremely potent tools in a magic system. That kind of structure is a big part of why the magic in Mistborn works as well as it does.
I don't care what the context is, I don't hear enough people talk about SG1.
100% Agree!!! Doubly so for SG Atlantis!
Can I ask for the entire image sketch from the segment at 7:12? I would like to use it in a PowerPoint presentation. I want to talk about magical systems within the context of a college course focusing on literature. The presentation will not be recorded/published, and I would credit you as the source. So, if you don't mind. Thanks for reading the query.
Shoot me an email at clark@crrowenson.com and I'll get you something you can use
@@themagicengineer5314Thanks! :)
My guess is that the Wheel of Time would be a hard rational. But where would Malazan book of the fallen lie?
I haven't read enough of either series to say for sure, but Malazan seems like a Soft-Irrational system from what I know of it. Does anyone that's read the full series agree or disagree?
@@themagicengineer5314 well they pull power from warrens which are side dimensions of gods or dead gods which are all veins of the god of magic. ....I think. He gives clues but never slaps you in the face with an definite answer.
3:47 As a superman fan I'm going to partially disagree. What his powers are is well defined but how strong they are is not. "Superman is as strong as he needs to be" (which also means he's as weak as he needs to be) is the rule. 5:18 ah I see that's what the irrational label is for.
10:09 I think there needs to be more digging on these axes. I'd split hard/soft into "how likely is a character to pull out a whole new thing we've never seen" (how well we know the character or setting) and "how consistent is a thing once introduced" (how well we know the magic). Rational could be split into "how well do the pieces fit with each other" (predicting how they interact) and "how well do they fit with the world" (predicting how they can be used in unseen ways).
12:00 Star vs the forces of evil (season 1 mostly) is interesting for this. Star has a magic wand that can do anything but it's hard to control which is soft magic causing problems but those problems (and others) are solved by the same wand. She learns that it's best to stick with spells she knows and thus only uses a couple of them becoming more hard-irrational magic. The season 1 finale introduced a very hard magic villain who uses 1 simple but effective rule: if you break it, it will regrow twice as strong. So even though we don't know exactly how strong Star's magic is, we can reason that this thing will quickly become too strong and that she needs another solution (no spoilers). In early season 3 (episode 5?) Star does a thing (sorry this will be hard to describe without spoilers) that's seemingly soft magic to beat a villain. However the thing is similar to an already established thing and thus fits within the viewer's expectations and although surprising is not a dues ex machina.
good points. It's all about finding the way to conceptualize it that works for you. And I'll be honest, I don't have a complete understanding of superman, his arcs, and how everything works because I was simply not interested in my first several introductions to the topic. Nothing wrong with him though :)
@@themagicengineer5314 oh my gosh a reply. I just watched Hello Future Me's "In Defense of Soft Magic Systems" (ruclips.net/video/jfSg2CFOWNU/видео.html) which had a really interesting point: soft magic fits well with emotions (which are soft) and hard magic fits with rationality (eg physics). 1 isn't better than the other, they are different tools for different jobs.
The only superman I know is animated. As for recommendations: superman red son has "superman can do anything yet can't solve the problems" (it's an alternate world but very good). superman vs the elite has superman needing to win a moral victory which his power can't directly solve (but still sorta does). In Justice League: War superman is the big gun and uses his strength to beat the final villain yet without ruining the suspense. In Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox (an alternate timeline) only the flash knows how strong superman is. Flash is like "trust me he's the most powerful man in the universe. we need to find him and he can help us" they find him under a red solar lamp and drag him outside where superman accidently destroys a tank and is immediately horrified by the strength he didn't know he had. Superman was only in a little bit of that movie and it took a bit to explain why it's good but yeah. If none of those sound interesting then I can't recommend superman to you since none of the live action movies are any good.
@@SkySpiral7_Lets_play I'll add those to my watch list.
And I completely agree. Soft magic systems have their place and stories that want to emphasis emotion, wonder, or scale (large world or universe) are perfect places for them
Where would you say One Piece's devil fruit powers fit on the chart (especially compared to some of Oda's... more interesting explanations for some non-devil fruit-related phenomena)?
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with One Piece to answer that. Do you know any good videos or articles that summarize the system? I could give it a look and get back to you
A limitation I see in this categorisation is that knowledge of a system and ability to apply logic to it are generally quite strongly linked. Can you really have high knowledge of a system that has no logic to show that it has given all of the knowledge? Similarly if a system has provided the how/why, then knowledge of the system will surely progress towards complete, is it not mostly just a matter of how far the story explores it?
Also, knowledge and rationality are already pretty well covered by normal discussions of hard/soft system. This does add some depth to categorisation of hard/soft systems, for sure, but I'm not sure just how much that is. It feels like rationality and knowledge is just the hard/soft slider split into two with a 30° angle between them.
Edit: After discussion with a friend, we've landed upon the idea of 'scope' (or whatever term fits best). Basically the range of things a system _could_ do, not so much about the scale of things done (fireball and 'bigger fireball' explore the same magic, unless there's something beyond narrative progression to the bigger fireball).
Think of scope as 'the ability to completely explore the system.' For example:
Nen is hard with a broad scope. We can see a new ability and get how it works, but said new ability could be basically anything.
Allomancy is hard with a narrow scope. There's only so many metals, so many abilities, so many interactions between them and we could potentially see and understand all of them.
Magic in Harry Potter is leaning towards soft with a broad scope. A spell or magical item/creature/etc. can be basically anything and incantations are just tools to help learn and control it, though it's not as broad as the likes of Nen.
Soft-narrow systems seem like the least populated quadrant, as it's hard to fully explore a soft system. It's also the area I'm least familiar with. I'd say the force seems soft, leaning towards narrow. It being soft is no question and the things done with it are generally quite limited. New uses come up, but they're few and far-between and the scope of it doesn't seem to change much, the general idea seems that we've seen most of what the force is and can be used for.
Note that I'm not trying to put this as a 'your idea is bad, look at this,' this is just exploring ways to add a meaningfully different second axis to the normal single-axis hard/soft categorisation. There could also be plenty of flaws in the scope idea that I just haven't thought of yet.
I think that rationality on its own is a more meaningful metric than scope (or whatever would be best to call it), but the normal hard/soft categorisation already covers knowledge/rationality and the two metrics are quite closely linked, so to me it doesn't feel like it adds much.
All good points. You're spot on with the relationship between the quadrants and the more traditional understanding of Hard/Soft Magic. The traditional definition runs diagonally from the bottom left to the top right.
And they are closely connected, but I felt they were distinct enough to separate out as it helped me understand the differences between something like Mistborn and the powers of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There are other aspects of my process that make this distinction a more useful to me, but I didn't have a chance to cover them all in this video
Thanks for the input and well thought out analysis!
When D&D party members keep their distance from their wild magic sorcerer during combat, you're seeing a high knowledge/low logic system in action: the players know that there's a small but non-zero chance that the sorcerer will roll badly and drop a fireball on themself. Most of the time, knowing about an effect makes it more controllable but this is one case where it doesn't.
Hardness is how much you show the audience, rationality is how much you adhere to.
3:18 That's what she said.
I think Discworld magic is irrational, but it's nearer the line between hard and soft. There are rules, but they vary based on the circumstances. There is a kind of storybook logic that runs through most of it.
Irrational specifically means there is no pattern. No throughline, no ability to predict, to extrapolate.
Discworld is very rational. The rules it follows just tend to be common well known conventions of storytelling.
IE.: a singular highly akilled enemy is a massive threat, 10 of them are probably there ro make you look good.
It runs exactly counter to what normal expectation would be, but its srill a hard and predictible rule.
Another one of these would be The Witcher.
Both run on what you could call storybook logic.
Where would you put the Stand system from JJBA ? I'd say Soft-Neutral IMO.
I'm not very well versed in JJBA. But why would you say soft-neutral instead of soft-irrational?
@@themagicengineer5314 (I didn't realize it was gonna turn into a whole essay 😅)
For the *rational* part :
Stands generally follow basic rules :
Can't be seen by normal persons, are intangible like spirits and only other spiritual entities can hurt them. Injuries are synchronized between the stand and its user (Maybe inspired by sympathetic magic ?).
They can be split into categories, with their own sub-rules, and one could even argue that a lone exception in the past could become apart of a sub-type latter on, like Automatic stands :
In Part 3, Judgement was heavily injured, yet its user was completely fine, not even realizing his stand lost. This was the sole exception of the part, but latter parts expanded on this concept and created the Automatic sub-type :
They don't share injuries, information and consciousness with their user, for better and for worse. This set of rules doesn't feel arbitrary for me as they're all consequences of being more independent from their user.
So, if one could determine the type of the stand, they could deduce useful info in order to survive and fight it.
Stands generally obeys their own specific rules about their abilities, and stay consistent with their limitations; like the exact range they can travel from the user, the number of items they can use their powers on, their specific triggers (like the mold of Green Day that can only consume flesh if the victim lowers their altitude), their limitation (Crazy Diamond can't heal its own user cause he's selfless).
Stands with several powers are generally united either 1) All their abilities are drawn from the same source (Like all the lightning-based powers of RHCP); 2) All their abilities, even disjointed, rejoin in the same theme (Like all Aerosmith powers being under the "battle plane" theme); creating cohesion between said powers.
The very simple yet versatile stands of the protagonists are often introduced early, and their creative uses could be predicted by following the logic of the basic ability. The best example being Stone Free; who can turn itself and its user into string. If you don't mind being spoiled, the page of the stand list a few examples of creative uses, and they're all consistent jojowiki.com/Stone_Free The same goes for Crazy Diamond, even tho a bit more vague (he can "fix" objects by reversing their current state to a previous one), was able to make use of this simple ability, and each time it felt logical to me. The same can't be said for Gold Experience and Star Platinum, who are more likely to asspull abilities that couldn't be extrapolated from our previous understanding of their basic abilities.
For the *irrational* part :
It's shorter, but I think it still plays a huge part on the axe.
How the stands are able to interact with people, yet people cannot interact with them ?
We don't know how extension of the soul can do what they do. Okay, so The world can stop time. But how can it interfere with such an universal concept ? How can Hanged Man interact with reflections ? How can Soft Machine deflate stuff ? Generally, the "how" of stand powers are never explained, if the story said a stand was able to do stuff, then we must accept at face value that it can do it (Which isn't a problem per see).
And of course, the fact that each stand is unique due to being fueled by the uniqueness of the person's traits and history creates an infinite amount of possibilities; and can make it difficult to extrapolate the precise stand of a person, even knowing them very well.
So that's why I'll say it mildly rational. What do you think ?
I have issues with tech being a magic system because tech should obey the laws of physics at least nominally.
Bear in mind, this is based on my definition of magic and magic systems (ruclips.net/video/hX-2Bg7n5wQ/видео.html). There is plenty of sci-fi tech (especially in space opera) that doesn't follow physics. I get more into some of the differences between tech and magic in another video (ruclips.net/video/CNCts5auJmg/видео.html)
@@themagicengineer5314 I understand where you are coming from but sometimes I could just ☠ Arthur C Clarke if he wasn't already. The existence or not of magic is at the boundary of the distinction between SF and Fantasy If yes then it's one thing, if no it's another.
It's like saying a mule is a horse just because they look similar and do the same job on the farm.
Explanation of my magic system, Cana means magic energy, arcana is artificial Cana and Natcana is naturally occurring Cana, mages and other magical entities can make images in their heads of the environment in which Cana which acts a certain way occurs, and then that arcana materializes near the mage, natcana is stronger than arcana, creating arcana takes mental strength, nature is controlled by a god, this god has more mental strength than mortals, the strength of the god is given in a diluted form to nature, Natcana is more potent than arcana, this system is made by me, and I would say it is 3/4 hard, 2/4 irrational.
Very nice! Since the Natcana is controlled by a god, does that mean mortals can't use/influence it at all, or do they just need permission from the god?
occultists are gasping rn
lol
I appreciate the thought you put into this, but it seems to me to have the same issues that the political compass does, namely to take a single scale and separate out parts of it into a second scale without renaming the first scale. In the political compass, left vs right is already the same as libertarian vs authoritarian. The other scale should be something like collectivist vs individualist, not left vs right. I don't mean to compare your compass with the political compass beyond this, as there are many issues with the latter than run much deeper than simply renaming an axis.
In this magical compass of yours, hard vs soft is already the same as rational vs irrational, and should instead be something like clear vs obscure, as @thomasjenkins5727 put it. I see little issue with your compass beyond this, and the examples you give are great.
I appreciate the feedback. The two axis are pretty hard to separate out at times. I think that's a big reason why it hadn't been done before and, if I'm being honest, I often find myself revisiting it wondering if there's something I'm missing and some way I can divide it better.
Hopefully it was still helpful to you and the differences become clearer with more discussions. Or maybe I'll find a better way to describe it down the line. No way to know :)
Hunter x Hunter has the best magic system.
I've had that series recommended to me several times. I really need to check it out
I really don't get how people can stand given creedence to irrational plot devices. I don't buy any of this explaination. It seems like its better served by calling it good and bad magic systems. Systems that dont have coherence should be called what they are: plot convenience. If you as a reader allows the authors to use them without stating thier boundries, you are giving them a get out jail free card for plot whenever they want.
No get out of jail free card intended. This might be hypocritical, but I do think there is such a thing as bad writing. What I think you're talking about falls firmly in the bad writing domain
@@themagicengineer5314 I'd love to agree with you, but that places alot of modern writing into that catagory and I'm not sure you mean to say that. Not many people are willing to concede that most popular fiction have magic system that leave a lot of plot holes in their wake.
@@joshuaherrera358 Fair enough. Good thing we don't have to agree perfectly :)
I will say there are a LOT of poorly implemented magic systems that could be create with more attention and care. That's my main goal. Is to help people understand these steps and potential problems so they can built better system and get the most out of them for their story.
Happy to have you here on the channel. It's good to have a variety of opinions in a group, especially when those people can remain civil during the discussion.
Do you consider lorfld of the rings a badly written story? Because on at least four occasions previously unintroduced magical powers majorly change the plot, or save the heroes from mortal danger.
The sole measure of quality fpr writing is NOT internal consostency or predictibility, nor are they always desirable.
@@egoalter1276
Lord of the Rings is severely flawed, yes. Every real fan knows this.
Your plot is only as strong as your weakest plot point. Objectively.
Every story that has a plot hole would be better without it. Objectively.
One reason for is the very straight line you can draw from the implications from behaviour of characters that are made in light of their understanding of the world.
If any normal person lets people die when he/she knows an easy way to save them and they don't use because its is only revealed later that they know they know how, that person's ethics comes into question. Objectively.
There are many instances all throughout lotr where Gandalf fails to utilize any magic the story implies later he is capable of. This means people in his charge are left to die unnecessarily. This DIRECTLY undermines the portrayal of this character's aptitude, kindness, mercy, wisdom, courage, or whatever you like. This is exactly how plot consistancy "bleeds over" into more than just prediectability. Objectively.