Commentary for discussion by players - and perhaps useful for designers.
What does it mean to have magic in a game?
It's one thing to have 'simulation' (e.g., Flight Simulator) or to go to more than that (e.g., Sim City); to have 'wargames' whether strategic or tactical.
But it's less defined to add 'magic'.
To discuss this raises some underlying issues. Let's start with magic in gaming - D&D.
My understanding is that D&D was developed by people who enjoyed paper wargaming - I'm not sure if they were directly inspired by Tolkien but it seems likely - where they injected fantasy and magic and medieval combat into the wargaming model. Where you might have had a soldier tank firing a bullet or shell, you could have a wizard shooting a fireball.
Because of a human GM, you could add spells that were less direct translations of war, for the GM to interpret.
But whatever spells were added had to fit into a 'balance' with the rest of the game. Not much use in a wizard casting 'summon all the gold in the world and nuclear missiles'.
What guidelines were there for what magic could do? Not many.
The main source would be historical novels - from King Arthur to Tolkien and mythology.
But what magic could be done by Merlin? By Gandalf? Turns out those books were pretty quiet about that. Merlin didn't conquer the world with fire from the sky. Gandalf set off some fireworks as he entered the shire to amuse the children, which may or may not have had magic, but he didn't simply send lava to cover Saruman's fortress.
This raises a question - magic isn't that fun if it's merely an alternate version of battle, 'bullets ' replaced by 'magic missiles'.
But that's an issue with role-playing games - they tend to be about one group of characters with x hit points trying to lower another group of character's hit points first. But the art of the game is hiding that basic mechanic, to turn rolling a dice into a great use of spells to buff, slow, disarm, and all kinds of other things enriching the game.
So, if a wizard can cast a fireball, why not one thousands of times bigger? If he can teleport, why not teleport the enemy leader to your jail? People look for some logic.
There's no obvious way to answer why a spell can or can't be cast - but practical design has led to the convention of 'mana' for limiting magic.
Limited mana is why the fireball can only be so big, and as the wizard gains skill he can get more mana, as the fighter gains weapon skills.
It's workable for game mechanics, but not really clear about what magic is about.
I don't have an answer for that - but I have an analogy I think is useful for magic.
When thinking of magic, think of electricity.
Electricity can be used for an incredible variety of things - requiring 'power' - but it has limits what it can do. It has dangers and is very complicated - like magic.
Arthur Clarke once said, something that is technologically advanced past a point can't be distinguished from magic. Electricity, invisible, fits that.
So in the same way that electricity can be used for a calculator, a stun gun, light, music, opening doors - all things with 'spell' equivalents - use that idea for magic.
Electricity can power a light bulb; more can power a stadium; in theory but not what we can do currently, it could make 'a big city seem like daylight'.
Similarly magic can easily have a 'light' spell for a torch or room; seeing through walls (x-rays?) is harder.
Wizards such as Gandalf were famous while using little 'magic'. I think game design can benefit from noting that.
It's not that RPG's should give characters a wizard class that doesn't use spells - but don't just make it a 'magic' version of a warrior. Consider what he'd do with electricity.
This might be a reason why 'steampunk' is appealing, looking at this same comparison between electricity and magic.
Just as electricity needs more 'amps and volt' for bigger things, 'mana' can similarly do that; stories are famous for wizards 'being exhausted' by a big spell, like a battery overused.
This is meant to make people be creative about magic, using the analogy of electricity, which happens to power, say, two people talking and seeing each other thousands of miles apart - which sounds a lot like the stones in Lord of the Rings. Magic is more fun when used for surprising powers.
This doesn't answer more questions about magic - but what game or book has?
It's not always logical - the ring that would doom Middle Earth in Sauron's hands (literally) was easily lost by Sauron to one man's swing of a sword. Not very consistent.
Electricity can power powerful electrical magnets - how could that be used in a game as a wizard's power?
The Wizard as a frail but powerful figure, playing with something that might hurt him - fits with the 'electricity' analogy. Many stories are about wizards powerless without their wand - which could easily be a sort of electrical controller and connector. Hopefully this might spark - sorry - some ideas for uses for magic.
What does it mean to have magic in a game?
It's one thing to have 'simulation' (e.g., Flight Simulator) or to go to more than that (e.g., Sim City); to have 'wargames' whether strategic or tactical.
But it's less defined to add 'magic'.
To discuss this raises some underlying issues. Let's start with magic in gaming - D&D.
My understanding is that D&D was developed by people who enjoyed paper wargaming - I'm not sure if they were directly inspired by Tolkien but it seems likely - where they injected fantasy and magic and medieval combat into the wargaming model. Where you might have had a soldier tank firing a bullet or shell, you could have a wizard shooting a fireball.
Because of a human GM, you could add spells that were less direct translations of war, for the GM to interpret.
But whatever spells were added had to fit into a 'balance' with the rest of the game. Not much use in a wizard casting 'summon all the gold in the world and nuclear missiles'.
What guidelines were there for what magic could do? Not many.
The main source would be historical novels - from King Arthur to Tolkien and mythology.
But what magic could be done by Merlin? By Gandalf? Turns out those books were pretty quiet about that. Merlin didn't conquer the world with fire from the sky. Gandalf set off some fireworks as he entered the shire to amuse the children, which may or may not have had magic, but he didn't simply send lava to cover Saruman's fortress.
This raises a question - magic isn't that fun if it's merely an alternate version of battle, 'bullets ' replaced by 'magic missiles'.
But that's an issue with role-playing games - they tend to be about one group of characters with x hit points trying to lower another group of character's hit points first. But the art of the game is hiding that basic mechanic, to turn rolling a dice into a great use of spells to buff, slow, disarm, and all kinds of other things enriching the game.
So, if a wizard can cast a fireball, why not one thousands of times bigger? If he can teleport, why not teleport the enemy leader to your jail? People look for some logic.
There's no obvious way to answer why a spell can or can't be cast - but practical design has led to the convention of 'mana' for limiting magic.
Limited mana is why the fireball can only be so big, and as the wizard gains skill he can get more mana, as the fighter gains weapon skills.
It's workable for game mechanics, but not really clear about what magic is about.
I don't have an answer for that - but I have an analogy I think is useful for magic.
When thinking of magic, think of electricity.
Electricity can be used for an incredible variety of things - requiring 'power' - but it has limits what it can do. It has dangers and is very complicated - like magic.
Arthur Clarke once said, something that is technologically advanced past a point can't be distinguished from magic. Electricity, invisible, fits that.
So in the same way that electricity can be used for a calculator, a stun gun, light, music, opening doors - all things with 'spell' equivalents - use that idea for magic.
Electricity can power a light bulb; more can power a stadium; in theory but not what we can do currently, it could make 'a big city seem like daylight'.
Similarly magic can easily have a 'light' spell for a torch or room; seeing through walls (x-rays?) is harder.
Wizards such as Gandalf were famous while using little 'magic'. I think game design can benefit from noting that.
It's not that RPG's should give characters a wizard class that doesn't use spells - but don't just make it a 'magic' version of a warrior. Consider what he'd do with electricity.
This might be a reason why 'steampunk' is appealing, looking at this same comparison between electricity and magic.
Just as electricity needs more 'amps and volt' for bigger things, 'mana' can similarly do that; stories are famous for wizards 'being exhausted' by a big spell, like a battery overused.
This is meant to make people be creative about magic, using the analogy of electricity, which happens to power, say, two people talking and seeing each other thousands of miles apart - which sounds a lot like the stones in Lord of the Rings. Magic is more fun when used for surprising powers.
This doesn't answer more questions about magic - but what game or book has?
It's not always logical - the ring that would doom Middle Earth in Sauron's hands (literally) was easily lost by Sauron to one man's swing of a sword. Not very consistent.
Electricity can power powerful electrical magnets - how could that be used in a game as a wizard's power?
The Wizard as a frail but powerful figure, playing with something that might hurt him - fits with the 'electricity' analogy. Many stories are about wizards powerless without their wand - which could easily be a sort of electrical controller and connector. Hopefully this might spark - sorry - some ideas for uses for magic.