Sup /tg/, I'm working on a new setting and magic system and I need some advice or feedback.
>The branches of Magic
There are three general types of magic. Beyond being different methods, each also has a different usage and limitations as to what they can do.
All magic users can tap into any or all of these branches and schools of magical power, but many specialize.
>High Arcanism
Sometimes called 'Classical Magic', it is the most formulaic and well understood branch of magic. Essentially, this power is the same as the power of the Gods, being able to change the world- mutations, transformations, terraforming, bestowing magical powers, etc. These are the powers related to this field, and it includes things like Alchemy, Sacred Metallurgy and Scroll Making.
>Twilight Thaumaturgy
This second branch of magic is based on the idea of being able to reach through the barrier and void between this world and the mirror realm. The mirror realm is not quite the afterlife, but it is essentially the land of emotions parallel to our land of the physical. People visit here when they dream, and everyone has copies and symbols here. This magic also includes the power to summon creatures from this realm, teleportation, as well as evocation of the raw energy created here. Black Fire, Lightning Bolts, Waves of Chilling ice are native to this realm from emotions and the creatures inhabitanting it.
>Witchcraft
The 'lowest' and most pedestrian of all magical arts; it is by far the most common type of magic and is by no means weak. It involves the subtle concepts of symbolism and luck. Magical rituals and crafts allow people to manipulate luck and fate, sometimes to uncanny levels. This magic produces less immediate, overt, or tangible effects but it can make people horribly cursed or lucky, as well as ritually enchanting magical items for specific purposes.
What do you think about this magic system?
...refreshed my page by mistake while trying to cut part of my message to post separately (2038/2000).
Can't be assed to retype that, you get nothing.
>>46721717
That sucks anon.
Can't even get a synopsis? I mean you took the time to post that you lost the real post.
>>46722813 I guess I'll try retyping it, give me a minute.
>>>46719595 What do you think about this magic system?*What do you think about these magic systems?
Straight out the gate, the biggest issue is that these magic systems are completely disparate.
That's fine from the perspective of suspending disbelief, but it's not aesthetically pleasing.
Roleplay is largely about wish fulfillment, and poor aesthetics are a great way to rain on that parade.
>>46719595
If you admit that the Earth is a confined sphere and the Abyss is located within the confines of that sphere, the abyss cannot be bottomless.
>>46724062
If the BBC can fit a large space inside a small box, I'm sure God can.
>>46724062 Pic unrelated, I think?
>the abyss cannot be bottomless.
Also, symbolism and metaphysics.
>>46723992 (cont.)
So to summarize the OP:
>High Arcanism
Mechanically: Tying up magic in a physical form.
Thematically: Something something gods, something something numbers ...
>Twilight Thaumaturgy
Mechanically: "Showy" magic, mostly creating or changing things.
Thematically: Pulling things out of Astral Planes- sorry, the "Mirror Realm".
>Witchcraft
Mechanically: Buffs and debuffs, mostly related to luck?
Thematically: Homeopathic magic.Incidentally, go read The Golden Bough.
>This second branch of magic is based on the idea of being able to reach through the barrier and void between this world and the mirror realm.
This is your best bet at a uniform "root" explanation of magic. My recommended changes to the flavor are:
>Arcanism-->Biggest change here.
Survey the Mirror Realm extensively, then perform tedious amounts of calculations based on them.
Use /those/ to guide the deliberate creation of a thoughtform in the Mirror Realm around and of the concept of a chosen object.
But still essentially tethering magic to an item.
>Thaumaturgy-->As is.
Tear the veil between the physical and the Mirror Realm, then pulls things through or across.
>Witchcraft-->Still basically homeopathic charms, but probably also taboos.Seriously, go read The Golden Bough.
Using physical objects and actions to influence the Mirror Realm, attuning it to create the desired charm.
>>46724288 You could also add things like:
>"Clerics" who (wittingly or not) channel egregores who they believe (erroneously or not) to be aspects or agents of their god(s).
>"Psychics" who's thoughts, on their own, effect the Mirror Realm strongly enough to bring about physical change.
>"Spirits" who discarnated into the Mirror Realm.
and so on, and so forth.
>>>46719595 Witchcraft
>The 'lowest' and most pedestrian of all magical arts
Bear in mind that pretty much everyone should know and use a bit of this.
Any community probably has a handful of decent Witchcraft practitioners, but everyone in the community is likely to know a few charms.
Probably the same few charms throughout the community, and probably not cast very well, but certainly known and cast by everyone.
Does magic really need to be so quantified? Doesn't that take the wonder out of it?
>>46724425 It doesn't need to be quantified, and probably shouldn't be.
But where there's characters using magic, there's explanations of magic that the players expect their characters to know.
Or at least explanations of how their characters use magic, but again players want to get to hear that.
>>46724518
Still, three different kinds of mechanics to work magic? Wouldn't that get confusing?
>>46724425
>>46724425
Not OP, but with magic, if you have too little explanation, you get wonder, but not really much else; if you can't describe how something happens in a setting (OOC, of course, IC people can have varying degrees of knowledge)
then you end up with a slightly unsatisfying amount of hand waving, finger shaking and shruging when it comes to saying what happened when it's all said and done.
>>46724541
d&d has 8 schools of magic
doesn't that get confusing?
>>46724597
No, because the mechanics of how magic works is consistent between classes and schools. Magic schools ultimately are just a categorization of spells, not necessarily an actual thing in the world.
>>>46724654 the mechanics of how magic works is consistent between classes and schools
OP never specified that his game system would treat the magics differently from a mechanical standpoint.
>Magic schools ultimately are just a categorization of spells, not necessarily an actual thing in the world.
But that's wrong. They /are/ fundamentally different in D&D. Specialist wizards show this well enough.
Despite being able to use magic, they are completely incapable of using even the simplest cantrips from schools they're unfamiliar with.
>>46724572
Things should be clear mechanically for players, yes, but I don't think it should be so heavily quantified in setting.
>>46724801
>OP never specified that his game system would treat the magics differently from a mechanical standpoint.
That was in reference to D&D, but it can be inferred that such drastically different ways of working spells have different mechanics to support them.
>But that's wrong. They /are/ fundamentally different in D&D. Specialist wizards show this well enough.
>Despite being able to use magic, they are completely incapable of using even the simplest cantrips from schools they're unfamiliar with.
As of 5e specialist wizards get bonuses to their chosen tradition, not lose access to others. A specialist wizard does specialize in a kind of magic tradition, but whether or not there are actual schools is debatable. There are the contemporary specializations, but there are also things like Artificer which are being workshopped, traditions that don't interact with spell schools.
What happens when you combine any two, OP?
Is there a reason in-setting that they aren't combined?
Is witchcraft basicially "Reagent-magic"?
Do any of the other schools need reagents? I know you said arcanism needed maths and that might be considered a reagent.
Just trying to fuel your world building through the eyes of a player.
OP here. This magic system was shite and I regret posting it. You can let the thread die now, sorry.
>>46725277
I think it's an interesting base concept that simply needs to be developed and refined.
>>46724062
Well, unless it's a confined sphere with an infinite radius.
>>46719595
My only question is what system do you use? Is this freeform, dice based or card based?
If it's freeform, this looks fine. Your world, your rules. However, from a mechanics standpoint the highly opposed systems will be difficult to orchestrate and balance if you are using randomization.
>>46719595
Having different types of magic users is good, but having separate sources and distincts types of magic is messy.
Twilight Thaumaturgy sounds the most interesting even if the name is a little tryhard, make all your magic stem from that source instead.
Worldbuilding that starts off by trying to enable an RPG often ends up shitty, just make the world cool, then figure out what "classes" or similar you need to make rules for, don't start off by saying "okay, I want like 4 types of casters so I need to make up 4 kinds of magic".
That road only leads to D&D with the serial numbers filed off.
>>46719595
Wait, there's an empty paradise under the ground? And all we need to reach it from hell is a big enough bridge?
GG God, shoulda put a lock or some of those spiky railing around paradise.
>>46719595
Aw, man. I want to go to 'Thunderworld' when I die. That sounds awesome.
>>46719595
What about classical Theurgy OP?
>>46728332
Do you have more Russian science-fiction covers like this?
>>46732810
i'm not certain it's actually a sci-fi cover - there's just some rando russian magazine with Asimov and Asuka on it.
I've literally never been able to find out the context for it really.
