Technically, you would probably do better insulting people who attempt to answer your questions on internet discussion forums than attempting the complicated task of writing out a story.
Um...that wasn't meant as an insult; I was just joking around man. Sorry if it came off that way. I genuinely appreciate the time an effort you've taken to help me out.
If I was going to use magic in a story, I'd make it so that it confined to the laws of physics. In other words, I'd have it so that the energy produced -- kinetic, heat, or otherwise -- couldn't exceed that which was physically stored in his/her body. I hate it when people just shoot lightning out their ass and don't even bat an eyelash -- the sheer amount of energy it would take to produce a single lightning bolt is enormous. Why doesn't anyone ever understand that?
Well, half the fun about magic comes from the fact that it can do the impossible; plus, I'm pretty sure most people really don't know or appreciate just how much raw power there is behind a bolt of lightning. Personally, I'm kind of in the middle on the whole thing: I don't mind physics-defying magic as long as it's nothing too outlandish and has a believable explanation for where the hell all that energy is coming from.
Laws of physics I don't mind getting broken, it's the laws of reason that you need to watch out for. Make sure you understand the implications of what your magic does. I just watched an animated series called the twelve kingdoms which had very good plot. The magic was believable and worked seamlessly into the story, which was basically political. They didn't take our politics and transported them to a different world. They created the politics based on the way that world worked, and they did it very well except for one thing. They decided to make it so that babies were born on trees. They didn't really think through what it would do to society if babies weren't born the "normal" way and that made a huge disconnect for me (not to mention add a whole new level of weirdness) made worse by the fact that everything else was so seamless.
But where's the dividing line between 'magic' and 'non-magic'? If I move something using a telekinesis 'spell', it's magic. If I move it with my hand, it's not. What if there's a bottle sitting on a table, and I shoot out a table leg with magic. The bottle falls off the table and smashes. Was it magic that smashed the bottle, or gravity? If it's gravity, then what shot out the table leg? Magic, or kinetic force? If kinetic force, then what created the force? Magic! So what is magic, exactly? It's something I can tap into to release energy. Do you know what a biologist would call that? Fat. Fat is stored in your body, after being consumed, which can be broken down and turned into energy, which can be transferred into your surroundings to make work. So what's the difference between drinking a 'mana potion' and eating a cheeseburger? I've always viewed 'magic' or 'powers' as a lazy kind of plot device. It's not supposed to be understood, it's just to further plots and solve problems without thinking about them. Once a character has superpowers/magic, you're cornered: If a dragon appears, you're tempted to just fireball it rather than come up with a more creative solution -- and even if you do come up with a creative solution, the audience is sitting there the whole time saying "why doesn't he just fireball the damn thing?"
It's psychic. What you speak of makes no sense. I believe you just over-thought this. You shot out the leg with magic. Done. That's it. The bottle smashing is just an externality of what you did. Things that cannot be explained by science according to traditions. Only science can be explained using scientific terms. Depends on what a "mana potion" is to you.
I fail to see what magic has to do with that. The same "lazy plot devices" you refer to could be done within the confines of reality. Go watch an action movie; the heroes in them always seem to pull a victory out of nothing. They may not "throw a fireball" but their god-like arsenal of machine guns, grenades, and an uncanny ability to dodge bullets while everyone else falls dead in a hail of gunfire is just as foolish. Whether it be magic, mundane, or mechanical, readers must know what a character has, doesn't have, and what he/she is capable of. It's your job as a writer to establish that. Doubly so if you're working with magic. The most important aspect of magic, like anything else, is keeping it consistent. Readers need to know what it takes to "throw a fireball" and should be informed whether or not the thrower has what it takes when the time comes. If chapter 2 tells us a magician has to be well-fed and rested to cast fireballs, then in chapter 3 he's starving to death and hasn't slept in days, but throws a blazing inferno at an attacking dragon, there's an obvious lapse in consistency. That's when magic becomes a "lazy plot device." The laws of reason far supercede the laws of physics.
Sorry but only idiots throw fireballs at dragons. last I checked, Dragons had a 75% Fire resistance. Better off going with an Ice Ball (Unless it's an Undead Dragon, in which case you need Light Damage /Nerd XD) . Magic isn't lazy. It's like any other plot device. It's all about implementation. Besides, you don't have a magician use some complex strategy to kill a simple monster. That just comes off as corny and unrealistic. Practicality flows better. If throwing that fireball will kill that dragon (I assure you it probably won't but go ahead if you like ) then throw the damn thing. Now if all the magician can do is throw fireballs which the dragon is immune to, he might actually have to get creative (Better yet the villain knew he only threw fire balls and sent the dragon!).
Wasn't it 100%? Besides, even if they didn't have that, there is always the spell resistance to worry about. You're far better of with a longsword of dragon bane. And against Undead Dragons, I'd rather have a cleric of Pelor to destroy him then a wizard with shocking grasp. /end nerd-rant (D&D 3.5 ftw) Wether or not a wizard throwing fireballs depends on who the wizard is. He has personality. If he's a fireball-throwing wizard, let him throw fireballs. If he is a invisibilty-with-dagger-wizard, let him go invisible and kill the dragon with his dagger. All of this has very little to do with magic. I'm going to repeat what has so often been said before;
Man, I wish I could remember the point I was trying to make... But you're all taking it way too literally. It's not about specific 'spells' like 'Greater Fireball of Reckoning Level 9' -- magic is a rogue element. It's a variable. 1+2 is 3. 1+2+m could be anything. Once you break the laws of reality, how can you then expect your readers/audience to have faith in the reality of your world? Gravity is a universal law, which relies on the fact that everything obeys it. If certain things are able to defy it, it ceases to be true. I'm not saying magic shouldn't be used in stories. I'm just saying it pisses me off when it's treated lazily. "A dude just fires a casual lightning storm out of his hands... so where did the energy come from? *shrug* It's magic!" I suppose that's the difference between fantasy and sci-fi, though...
That's why magic is given rules that limit it's uses. Magic may defy conventional science but it is itself subject to it's own limitations. You right if we don't limit what magic can do, but if we make a rule system it becomes m = 3, and 1 + 2 + m = 6 . I see what you mean now. it's lazy without limitations placed on it, which I completely agree with. If an astroid is falling towards the earth an a magician can blow it away with the snap of a finger without even blinking then there isn't any peril or suspense at all.
Oh, and here I thought lazy plotting was the(well, "a") difference between good writing and bad writing. I mean, explain to me by the laws of physics how a wormhole is created by a spaceship? Oh, you can't? (maybe you could, I'm using you as a hypothetical) Now that is lazy; not being able to cast a fireball because you murdered thirteen male virgins on the fifth of October.
Or magic is another thing that can release energy that isn't fat? I don't really see how its lazy to have magic be done without the energy coming from somewhere, such as the user's own energy reserve. The point of magic is that it is (usually) something supernatural, that operates outside the usual laws of physics. Some magic systems might simply have it that energy can be directly manipulated to do whatever a particular magic user wants it to do, without "creating energy". Another magic system might have it that the user can "create" energy of whatever form they want. Both are impossible (as far as i know) within the laws of the universe as science knows them today, which is what makes them magic.
I think this thread leapt right off the original topic about bringing magic to the modern setting, but it happens. I see where Emerald is coming from with his points also though. "magic" is everywhere. Seen a Star Wars movie recently? replace the word Jedi with Magician and boom...magic. Magic isn't whatever system you decide to describe to your reader, the magic is that they are willing to throw Reality out and believe you. I have read books from the Sword of Truth,D&D (mostly magic-intensive Eberron) and the Wheel of Time series where magic is so integrated that you would more readily question the political system than a fanciful magical description. Often I am more unbelieving of Horror films than fantasy. 'Why doesn't one of these idiots own a freaking gun?' I say (Yell at the TV), not...'why didn't he use magic to catch that falling bottle if he could break that chair leg with it?'
Since someone was referred to this thread when making a new thread on magic, I'll necropost. If it hasn't been hinted earlier in the story that the character can do something with magic, the reader will assume that he can't. Case in point: Gandalf in The Lord of The Rings. The reader knows that Gandalf is a wizard, and Tolkien doesn't explain what is possible and not possible to do with magic. Still, people don't complain about the scene where Gandalf fights a balrog on a bridge, or ask themselves why he doesn't just conjure the balrog away. If Gandalf HAD conjured the balrog away, the reader would have felt cheated, because up until that point in the story there was no hint that Gandalf had such an ability. The reader doesn't need to understand the magic system; she just needs to keep a list in her head of what each character can do. The writer maintains that list by establishing each special ability early on, before it affects the plot.
Magic needs to be governed by some form of consistency. Most systems employ more tha one of these forms, and they even sometimes contradict each other. There can be narrative consistency, where no rules are given but the reader never feels cheated by magic creating an easy solution. LOTR has narrative consistency. Very few rules are explained, though rules are explained occasionally. There can be explicit consistency in the form of a magic "system" with the hypothesis and theories and models explained to the reader when necessarry, but rigorously adhered to by the author and the characters. Mercedes Lackey's Velgarth books, or Harry Potter, or A Wizard of Earthsea have explicit consistency, though this form of consistency is often broken in the course of bad writing by writers who can't follow their own rules. Finally, there can be thematic consistency. It is much closer to narrative consistency, but the readers' acceptance of thematically consistent magic is based on established themes. All of these forms make use of rules: In a thematically consistent concept of magic, sacrifice might have power, although it's often not explained why. A narrative "rule" might be: magic can solve problems, but it will always cause trouble. An explicit rule might be that the further one is from a leyline, the harder it is to draw power from it.
You don't really have to explain magic. Sometimes you just don't have to because it's better to keep things mysterious. Also, if you want to make your own magic you need to learn as much as you can about what it generally considered magic and how it works, then see if you can mix it up. From what you've written so far you still have to go long way in order to make it special. For example, remember blood elves from World of Warcraft? They have been channeling arcane power from an otherworldly source but who gave it to them? A demon. Doesn't happen quite often. Your magic can actually be something that is created from the flow of nature and the life of the planet itself or it can be bestowed upon the casters by their ruler through some ritual, you never know.
Go back to some of the books, similar to yours that you plan to write, or at least that have magic and study how those authors did it. I'm not suggesting you copy their method, magic system, or anything like that. What you want to look for are examples that will give you ideas to implement in your own writing. Terry
