What makes for a good compelling Magic System?

[Incanus]

I think I'm a bit hung up on the term 'compelling'. I'm trying to think of a book or series that featured magic that was compelling all on its own, and I can't think of any right away.

It seems the compelling part is the way in which it affects the characters or plot. Maybe like--magic made this thing happen that sets the protagonist back, causing him/her to alter their plans in response; that kind of thing.

For my main work, I sort of don't think the term 'system' applies. It may be nitpicky, but it's more of a theory, or maybe a framework. I may post more about this as I get nearer to completing my novel (which is on hold while I work a short story).

I mostly associate fantasy with magic as well. I can think of only one fantasy book or series I have read that doesn't have any: Gormenghast.

 

[pmmg]

I think I'm a bit hung up on the term 'compelling'. I'm trying to think of a book or series that featured magic that was compelling all on its own, and I can't think of any right away.

It seems the compelling part is the way in which it affects the characters or plot. Maybe like--magic made this thing happen that sets the protagonist back, causing him/her to alter their plans in response; that kind of thing.

For my main work, I sort of don't think the term 'system' applies. It may be nitpicky, but it's more of a theory, or maybe a framework. I may post more about this as I get nearer to completing my novel (which is on hold while I work a short story).

I mostly associate fantasy with magic as well. I can think of only one fantasy book or series I have read that doesn't have any: Gormenghast.

Good observation. I have a tough time thinking of ones where it was compelling all on its own. I think Harry Potter succeeds, and maybe the Belgariad.

Typically, its it the swordsman vs the sorcerer, and the sorcerer is the bad guy, so there is not much about the magic system the is growing or being more and more understood. Mr. Sanderson gets a lot of credit for his magic systems...perhaps him. I have had it pitched to me that I should read him for his great systems. The one book I read from him though...I felt it was kind of 'yuck' people inhaling other people's breath...um...no thanks.

I think the force was pretty compelling in Star Wars. I can say without a second thought, that if an old man appeared to hand me a lightsaber and sent me off to study the force, I would have been a Jedi all the rest of my days. I still want to be one of those. I'd even kiss my sister.

But...alas.... I just have to write one instead. For me, my magic system is not compelling. But it is strongly in there. I will let reader decide what it means for them.

 

[Queshire]

From a writing perspective I don't think you should make a magic system simply because you think it is obligatory. It's important to think about how magic connects to and affects other things.

Since Harry Potter was brought up, well in it you need to do things in a very particular order & method for reasons that... you're never entirely sure about? In order for the magic to actually work. That's a feeling I'm sure all of us know from our school days. Not magic, sure, but learning math, grammar, chemistry classes, etc. There's a lot of times there where little baby Queshire was sat down, told to do it in this way in order to do it right and only understand later on why it was right if at all. Furthermore, duels against Death Eaters aside, the primary use of magic in Harry Potter was to make the mundane fantastic. You see it with school made fantastic with Hogwarts itself as well as those moments featuring the Weasleys as a whole. Especially in the early books it fits the vibe of escaping the boring normal world for something full of magic.

Magic as a drug that PMMG brought up before would naturally affect how those characters interact with / view both magic itself and the world in general. It shapes them.

What's important is how the magic connects to other things.

I also think that costs can be broader than loss of sanity, life force, magic addiction and such. Of course there's room for magic with those kind of harsh prices, but I think a broader view of costs can be useful. Taking again, Harry Potter as an example, the spells don't really have much of a 'per cast' cost. However, they do cost the wizard the time spent learning the spell beforehand, the material cost of needing to constantly have their wand on them in order to perform magic and the social cost of needing to interact with & be part of wizarding culture in order to perform magic. Of course those costs don't really play a part in the actual books, but if any of us were given to writing fanfiction then I'm sure any of us could find some interesting things to do with them.

Now, my personal tastes as a reader are, I'm sure, what some would call stale. I like understanding magic. I like how after reading the Dreseden Files I have a general understanding on how spells are constructed in that setting or how in the Cradle series you have these pretty basic building blocks of different elements and different ways madra (the mana in that series) can be applied but taken together there's a vast array of paths you can have in the setting.

 

[ThinkerX]

One of the notions I am batting around for some near-future Lovecraftian SF tales is 'Shards,' little bits of what appear to be colored crystals. When ingested, each color of Shard gives the person a temporary magical (psi) ability for about a week, give or take. Greens permit magical healing, Blues grant TK, Clears result in Remote Viewing, and so on. However, the Shards are traps - the more you take, the more you are influenced by Lovecraftian entities until insanity and mutation set in.

A robust, well-grounded person who takes two or three Shards will most likely experience a few disturbing dreams and a bout of queasiness that will fade after a few weeks. Do this a second time, and the dreams get worse, and the queasiness turns into a two-day illness. Taking five or six at once will likely result in heavy-duty prescription meds and a physical disability.

That said, the Shards do sometimes awaken latent psi abilities, though nowhere as potent.

 

[skip.knox]

Returning to the OP, I see there are several questions here.
> what makes magic good in a story?
I'm guessing you mean what makes it succeed as an aspect of telling the story. Have I got that right?

>When does it fail, and when is it most cool?
This question sort of elaborates on the previous, so I'll take a swing at both together.

I don't think it's about magic at all. It's about good story-telling. If the author succeeds as a story teller, then the magic part of it will just work. It will seem important and engaging and all that, not because it's a good magic system or not, but because it's told well. So, every bit as slippery as all that.

>How defined does a magic system have to be,
I've never been impressed with magic systems. To me, they're a bit like world lore. Maybe it's front and center and maybe it's way in the background. Both work, or at least both can be made to work by a good teller of stories.

>how does it all fit in with telling an immersive and compelling story?
Well, we're back to good story-telling, right?

To come at this from a different angle, let's substitute vivid setting in place of magic systems (soft or hard, doesn't matter). What makes setting good in a story? When does it fail and when is it most cool?

You see? We can swap in what makes characters good in a story or plot or theme. They're all pieces that come together to tell the story well.

 

[pmmg]

Returning to the OP, I see there are several questions here.

Well...I'd like to ask, because you were interested in my opinioni specifically, did I disappoint? Or did I fulfill whatever it was you were after from me? And if not, what was it you were hoping I would touch on?

 

[Incanus]

Good observation. I have a tough time thinking of ones where it was compelling all on its own. I think Harry Potter succeeds, and maybe the Belgariad.

Typically, its it the swordsman vs the sorcerer, and the sorcerer is the bad guy, so there is not much about the magic system the is growing or being more and more understood. Mr. Sanderson gets a lot of credit for his magic systems...perhaps him. I have had it pitched to me that I should read him for his great systems. The one book I read from him though...I felt it was kind of 'yuck' people inhaling other people's breath...um...no thanks.

I think the force was pretty compelling in Star Wars. I can say without a second thought, that if an old man appeared to hand me a lightsaber and sent me off to study the force, I would have been a Jedi all the rest of my days. I still want to be one of those. I'd even kiss my sister.

But...alas.... I just have to write one instead. For me, my magic system is not compelling. But it is strongly in there. I will let reader decide what it means for them.

Yes, the Force in Star Wars is pretty compelling, though it is largely shapeless and has little in the way of a 'system'.

I think I can go ahead and assume Sanderson's systems are fairly compelling on their own. I'm not sure I'll ever find out because I couldn't make it through the one book of his I started (Way of Kings).

The sorcery for my main project might almost be said to be compelling, but I'm not relying on that. It's not really the details that make it interesting to me, but the overarching concept behind it all.

You are right about the sword-and-sorcery setup: the 'hero' usually despises or doesn't trust sorcery, and so it goes largely unexplained. This is one of the many reasons I admire Clark Ashton Smith so much--he was far more likely to tell a story from the POV of the wizard instead (though the sorcery is still depicted as remote and mysterious).

Also, don't forget the late, great Jack Vance. If you want to know where Dungeons and Dragons got the idea for memorizing a limited number of spells per day, that's where it comes from.

 

[skip.knox]

Well...I'd like to ask, because you were interested in my opinioni specifically, did I disappoint? Or did I fulfill whatever it was you were after from me? And if not, what was it you were hoping I would touch on?

Of course not. It's your question, mate. I wasn't after anything, I was just interested in the question(s).

 

[pmmg]

Ah...you all should know by now, I dont really have good questions. I just ask things so people have something to think on. I wish I had good questions, or was good at asking them, but I am not. Sadly. We need someone like Heliotrope back for really good questions.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I think I am good enough to maintain confidence. My dictionary of choice is the FreeOnlineDictionary, but AI Summations seem to be challenging them, and all the others for the job. But below is a sample of what a google search will provide.


AI SUmmary: Fantasy writing is a genre of literature characterized by its inclusion of magical elements, supernatural occurrences, and often otherworldly settings not bound by the rules of the real world.

No.

Wiwipedia: Fantasy is a genre of speculative fiction that involves supernatural or magical elements, often including imaginary places and creatures.

No. And what the hell is "Wiwipedia?"

Cambridge Dictionary: a type of story or literature that is set in a magical world, often involving traditional myths and magical creatures and sometimes ideas or events from the real world, especially from the medieval period of history:

Yes.

Dictionary.com: a genre of fiction involving magical, folkloric, or mythical elements. I've been reading a lot of fantasy lately. Literature. Also an imaginative or fanciful ...

*waggles hand*

TheFreeOnlineDictionary: Fantasy literature is literature set in an imaginary universe, often but not always without any locations, events, or people from the real world. Magic, the supernatural and magical creatures are common in many of these imaginary worlds. Fantasy literature may be directed at both children and adults. <--the one I use most.

No.

Writing Explained: Define fantasy in literature: In summation, a work of fantasy fiction includes settings that are imaginary and often times magical in nature. The characters in ...

No clue.

We can play a game of which dictionary says what, but I will accept the some don't say it. But it is true that many do conflate fantasy fiction with magic. More so, when you are doing a compare of SciFi and fantasy. One is which is defined as a story in which the impossible happens, but there is an effort to provide a scientific reason as to why, and a story in which the impossible happens, but it is explained away by magic.

I'm going to go all academic snob and say, no, most of these sources suck. Cambridge is good. The Oxford English Dictionary is where it's at, at least for me, but I bet Skip's got good opinions on this, too. Now, the grain of salt. My entire life was Lit Crit, and now I write Urban Fantasy so it's Crit Hits. lol

But seriously - sort of - my unpopular opinion is that if someone wants to pin scientific reasons to magic, dude just go jump the fence to SciFi and leave us dragon lovers to our sparkles and bs. And I say this as a huge popular physics geek.

 

[SamazonE]

I had a story where a lord found a compass but the needle was gone. He searched far and wide in his house but came up with nothing. Eventually he found it at the bottom of his refuse tunnel.

The point is no magic was used to find it. He asked around but it was a stupid question. In the end magic does things others can’t but there are always ways around it.

It was a short story but there were relationships made around the magic of the story that stuck with me. There were no names in the story but still each character found a place in my heart. It was meant to be something longer with magic in it about a compass but it was abandoned.

You could say the needle represents magic. It’s at the bottom of a hay stack. It has physical form, but is so tiny one can’t see it, yet so essential that it must be found. It is in the imagination, but as early as fire. Science is more difficult to conceive, yet magic is in the realm of possibility, that needs trust and assurance to find.

The lord is like any ruler, a powerful man experiencing loss. He has a wizard, a judge, but he also sees meaning in the compass. He wants to put it in his treasure chest. He also had a lot of guests to entertain, and things to say in the mean time, but the needle is so important, that it is in the realm of magic, therefore impossible.

I suppose it was a long time ago, and I can’t really remember it. It was meant to turn into something that a compass found, but I could only see a pile of junk. But others found worth in it, I found my daughter reading it. It was printed out and stuffed in my file. Funny the things one finds appearing to be magic.

 

[pmmg]

No.

No. And what the hell is "Wiwipedia?"

Yes.

*waggles hand*

No.

No clue.

I'm going to go all academic snob and say, no, most of these sources suck. Cambridge is good. The Oxford English Dictionary is where it's at, at least for me, but I bet Skip's got good opinions on this, too. Now, the grain of salt. My entire life was Lit Crit, and now I write Urban Fantasy so it's Crit Hits. lol

But seriously - sort of - my unpopular opinion is that if someone wants to pin scientific reasons to magic, dude just go jump the fence to SciFi and leave us dragon lovers to our sparkles and bs. And I say this as a huge popular physics geek.

Now you are beginning to sound like Mr. Swede.

That one word was Wikipedia. I am sure you could sus that out. The site locks and does not allow for edits.

Here’s something that will shock you but the oxford dictionary is already obsolete. All it contains has already been sucked up by AI. Very few of the internet masses are going to go check oxford when the AI has already given an answer.

Many places that care to define fantasy fiction today point to its use of magic as a definitive element. Do you think, as time goes on they will bend to oxford or that oxford will bend to them.

What AI says about oxford:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "fantasy" as a general term for fictional works that don't primarily focus on realistic representation of the world. It encompasses various genres like dream visions, fables, fairy tales, romances, and even science fiction. It also refers to the power of imagination, a mental image, or a fanciful notion.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. As a literary genre:

• Fantasy is a broad category of fiction that often includes elements not found in the real world, such as magic, mythical creatures, and alternate or fantastical settings.

I feel even more confident.

 

[Mad Swede]

Now you are beginning to sound like Mr. Swede.

That one word was Wikipedia. I am sure you could sus that out. The site locks and does not allow for edits.

Here’s something that will shock you but the oxford dictionary is already obsolete. All it contains has already been sucked up by AI. Very few of the internet masses are going to go check oxford when the AI has already given an answer.

Many places that care to define fantasy fiction today point to its use of magic as a definitive element. Do you think, as time goes on they will bend to oxford or that oxford will bend to them.

What AI says about oxford:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "fantasy" as a general term for fictional works that don't primarily focus on realistic representation of the world. It encompasses various genres like dream visions, fables, fairy tales, romances, and even science fiction. It also refers to the power of imagination, a mental image, or a fanciful notion.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. As a literary genre:

• Fantasy is a broad category of fiction that often includes elements not found in the real world, such as magic, mythical creatures, and alternate or fantastical settings.

I feel even more confident.

(Please note that as a researcher and academic I would never include anything from AI as a source or a reference, as AI is not reliable.)

You stated in a reply to me that "the definition of fantasy story of is stated as having magical or fantastical elements". With the exception of the Cambridge Dictionary none of the sources you quoted state that fantasy stories must have magical elements. The source I cited (the Oxford Dictionary of Literature) also does not insist that fantasy stories must include magic elements.

And now you complain that when A. E. Lowan also doesn't agree with your statement she sounds like me... The fact that we don't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean you can't include magic in a fantasy story, but it is not a requirement. I could name quite a few other fantasy novels which don't include magic.

As skip.knox wrote, the key is not using certain elements or tropes in your story, it's about your storytelling ability. Without decent story and character arcs, good characterisation and good dialogue you story won't be going anywhere fast. I mentioned Richard Cowper's books earlier, and they illustrate the point quite nicely in my view.

Which brings me back to you original question and my first reply. I don't need a detailed magical system in a fantasy story, in fact I don't need any magic at all. But when magic is used what I do look for is the way that magic is used as part of the overall storytelling, especially with regard to the way it affects the characters and their development.

I often give The Belgariad as an example, because David and Leigh Eddings did such a wonderful job of storytelling. That series of books uses all the fantasy cliches going, but the magic system is never really explained. Instead we see how magic/sorcery affects Garion as he grows up and we learn quite a lot about the many regrets Belgarath and Polgara have regarding the choices they faced in using (or not using) their powers. Another example is Vordai. We see both how magic develops them and the price they pay for those powers.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, compelling is an interesting word. I'd say that I've never experienced a compelling system.

The risks of magic in my world range from twitching, to pain, to never being able to channel Elemental energy again, to becoming a blibbering idiot sitting in the corner rocking back and forth eating bugs, to becoming that one drummer from Spinal Tap. Neither characters nor readers understand it, and in-world they have multiple explanations.

 

[Incanus]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion about the definition of fantasy fiction one way or the other. But I'd be curious to know the reasons why A.E. Lowan rejects most of the defs above. She may be right, but no explanation is given, so I can't be sure.

It seems to me, these definitions more or less cover at least 90% of what's out there, though I haven't read very many brand new fantasy books. Also, many of them use terms like, 'commonly', 'often', 'sometimes', 'especially', which means they allow for exceptions.

I was just wondering. It's not like I'm going to revise my novel based on a definition of fantasy I didn't know before.

 

[pmmg]

A game of whose got the best dictionary, or whose got the best definition is like dredging the bottom of argumentation. For everything found, a counter can also be found. But nothing you do is less concrete cause I found a way to define it differently. I'm bowing out on that one any more. Use your dictionary of choice, fantasy is still fantasy.

 

[pmmg]

I had a story where a lord found a compass but the needle was gone. He searched far and wide in his house but came up with nothing. Eventually he found it at the bottom of his refuse tunnel.

The point is no magic was used to find it. He asked around but it was a stupid question. In the end magic does things others can’t but there are always ways around it.

It was a short story but there were relationships made around the magic of the story that stuck with me. There were no names in the story but still each character found a place in my heart. It was meant to be something longer with magic in it about a compass but it was abandoned.

You could say the needle represents magic. It’s at the bottom of a hay stack. It has physical form, but is so tiny one can’t see it, yet so essential that it must be found. It is in the imagination, but as early as fire. Science is more difficult to conceive, yet magic is in the realm of possibility, that needs trust and assurance to find.

The lord is like any ruler, a powerful man experiencing loss. He has a wizard, a judge, but he also sees meaning in the compass. He wants to put it in his treasure chest. He also had a lot of guests to entertain, and things to say in the mean time, but the needle is so important, that it is in the realm of magic, therefore impossible.

I suppose it was a long time ago, and I can’t really remember it. It was meant to turn into something that a compass found, but I could only see a pile of junk. But others found worth in it, I found my daughter reading it. It was printed out and stuffed in my file. Funny the things one finds appearing to be magic.

I dont know what to make of it. You had a story about a compass missing its needle, nothing magic happened, but the needle was found... My inclination is this is not a fantasy story. Its just a fiction story. What was fantastical about it?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I dont know what to make of it. You had a story about a compass missing its needle, nothing magic happened, but the needle was found... My inclination is this is not a fantasy story. Its just a fiction story. What was fantastical about it?

Could have been a hay stack involved?

 

[pmmg]

Could have been a hay stack involved?

I suppose....some haystacks have been magic.

 

[black magic]

This is a little subjective because some people do seem to like mystery to their magic. It just works, kind of thing, and that's it.
Others do seem to like it to follow rules, laws and patterns with consequences or requirements. I like it when it kind of follows the Butterfly Effect. One little bit of magic can create something big somewhere else so be mindful how you use it. I really dislike when magic is used to save the day just because it's magic.

I like it to be different. Unique. Like the author has put some effect into thinking outside the box. For me that's what makes it good. It sticks to rules and patterns and can be a help or a hindrance.