[
]Light fantasy is easier. The rules it works on (referred to hereafter as metasetting) are the same as those governing our world, mostly. All things you can read about in chemistry or physics works. Magic is (usually) something 'different', separate from reality. Often, though not the case with good settings, it also feels artificial, not part of the setting. A post scriptum, if you will. In settings well done the magic is supposed to be the unnatural, like demons or undeath.
A good example would be Mage: the Ascension, with paradox spirits guarding "reality".
Another example is D&D, by core. Though this is debatable. Symptoms of light fantasy in D&D include, but are not limited to, (Su) abilities, antimagic fields and the strict line between Animals and Magical beasts.
Reasons
Animals and Magic beasts: The strict line between magic and mundane, supernatural and normal. This is a great sign of arbitrary division, created from perspective outside the setting. Take, for example, the owlbear. Nothing, absolutely nothing, would differentiate these creatures from other fauna. They cast no spells, have no exotic abilities, nothing. Only thing that differentiates them from animals are spells that specifically affect animals. Which are a symptom of them being magical beasts.
Supernatural abilities, Antimagic field: Another clear division between magic and the mundane. Why do incorporeal undead disappear in an antimagic field, while elementals, for example, have no problems? Why do the breaths of dragons stop there? Once again, the only difference between a dragon's breath and, say, burning log would be that other disappears in the field. Granted, another is probably a bit more devastating, but still. The metasetting is done from modern point of view, not that of the setting's.
True fantasy, usually, is better world-building, too. If the designer is careful with it.
True fantasy draws no lines between the mundane and the magical. Spells can certainly be differentiated from normal actions, if such is desired. But metasetting is consistent with the setting; no arbitrary "this be magic, this not" distinction imported from our world, twisted by modern worldview. Why should an owlbear respond differently to spells when compared to, say, polar bear? Or owl? True fantasy makes the entire world mystical, or magical, if you will. The very principles that govern everyday actions are altered, more or less. There may not be atoms, cold can be a force in and of itself, as can darkness. The sun actually is a god. And the god is a sun.
I prefer true fantasy (as anyone can see, the names I chose are extremely neutral in tone, not implying either to be better :D). It is, to me, a lot more fantastic.
That said, I also like low-magic games. With the entire world magical, there is no need for "Ye Olde Magick Shoppe" or hordes of mages running around in robes and muttering and gesturing and jumping around "bending reality". Indeed, there is no reality being bent. No pesky paradox spirit to track the mage down. No artificial and arbitrary lines between the magic and the mundane. For example: IIRC (and it has been a while) Pendragon had "ordinary" animals have supernatural or magical abilities. This is taken from Bestiaries of Middle ages.
I am yet to encounter any combinations of true and light fantasy, aside from "additional world"-settings, in which the line is drawn in how the different worlds function. One may exist, though.
FYI, to avoid unnecessary flame wars, I am not oppressing those who like light fantasy. Come up with a better name, if you will, if it matters. I stated my preference and try to influence others, maybe. That doesn't mean your views are wrong. Feel free to argue merits of true and light fantasy. As for magic, it must not use the definition I gave at the beginning, in a fantasy setting. True one, that is.
Come up with how the magic works. See how it integrates with other features of the setting. Make them consistent, both to players, you and, perhaps even more importantly, to those inhabiting the world. It adds versimilitude, or realism, to the world--realism in the sense of being realistic to those who live there.
[/
]I would first like to hear more examples of what you would call lite and true fantasy. You list D&D as light fantasy but how would you categorize Eberron or FR? And I'd also like to touch upon how you define the two. You mention two things which can make fantasy "lite": having magic as a separate force/entity and having a world where magic seems more like an afterthought. Since the latter is too arbitrary I would confine the definition to fantasy where the supernatural is treated differently from the natural. If we assume this definition I'd suggest the terms "Supernatural" and "Natural" Fantasy or "Separate" and "Integrated" Fantasy.
I'd like to know discuss your two examples of light fantasy in D&D: Supernatural abilities and the Animal/Magical Beast distinction. While I agree that having a clear distinction between magical and non-magical leads to magic feeling tacked-on it is an important game mechanic and makes sense if we assume there is something fundamentally different about magic than the other forces that flow through the world. It depends on the setting of course but the most common sources of magic are alternate planes of reality, spirits in nature and a gift from the gods. All three of these are to us supernatural, and while you claim it is for them to it depends. While I do not believe in magic or gods in real-life people do claim to be psychic and in touch with the gods in this world, yet we see this as outside the normal. If in this fantasy world it is the same situation just with more "true believers" then why wouldn't magic be viewed as supernatural and separate? It's the way paranormal activity such as ghosts, ESP etc. are viewed to us; why not them?
As to the distinction of Animals and Magical Beasts - that is something a agree with more. As you pointed out there is no fundamental difference I can see between a Bear and an Owlbear yet one is labeled "magical" and spells such as Speak with Animals do not work on it. This is in fact a very wide spread problems in RPGs mainly because people find it hard to think outside of our own world. For example look at the various races: Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, etc. If they all evolved from something or were created by an Intelligent Designer why are they all bipedal, humanoid, etc? That is again because designers find it hard to think of the world as a separate entity, they tie it to our own world too closely so they come up with things such as Supernatural abilities and Magical Beast creatures so we can continue to apply our own cultures, views and folklore to the world.
While you raise the issue with magic it certainly doesn't stop there. The problem is in the fundamental ability for designers to let loose most of the time and do what they imagine. I'm sure every DM or setting creator had an idea that was really out there and just dismissed it because it was too "out there". Well the bi-product of that can be seen in the instances you bring up. Whoever came up with the Owlbear would have thought about a simple animal hybrid and gone "that's too weird, through it in the 'unnatural' pile". For more examples of this just look at the distinction of arcane and divine magic or the fact that almost all of the weapons in the PHB are historically based. And if someone came up with a new weapon, say a long stick with an anchor shaped hook on the end - it'd be placed under "Exotic". Why should it be though? I mean look at stuff even from out own world, the Monk weapons are Exotic despite them being balanced Simple weapons! And Arcane/Divine is a distinction that arises from religious and non-religious magic and has been held onto since the original version of D&D.
Overall I feel D&D, and it's myriad settings, drop the ball in the fantasy department. They cling onto the old Tolkien notions of Good vs. Evil, Natural vs. Magical, Black vs. White. Some settings break out of this mould, just look at Ravenloft with its various districts or Planescape with its cosmos of other campaign settings. There is a reason these settings are still loved and cherished, it's because they dared to think outside the box and do something different. I am most certainly a victim of this myself though, and this article has really made me think about what magic is and how, if at all, it's different from the "natural" things. D&D has been stuck in Tolkien fantasy for thirty or so years too long. It needs to grow up and evolve because the old notion that magic is different is no longer any good. Fantasy needs a major re-think.
A very nice article. Good work as always, Gil.
I have to disagree about the Tolkein influence; Middle Earth is very much an imbedded magic world. I don't know where the idea that he had Magic as different came from - with the exception of a few supernatural creatures it is very well embedded, to the point that you have to be alert to spot some magic use, and the elves in particular clearly make no distinction between skill and magic. They are clearly rather uncertain what the Hobbits even mean by the word!
I'd like to know discuss your two examples of light fantasy in D&D: Supernatural abilities and the Animal/Magical Beast distinction. While I agree that having a clear distinction between magical and non-magical leads to magic feeling tacked-on it is an important game mechanic and makes sense if we assume there is something fundamentally different about magic than the other forces that flow through the world.
And *that* is exactly where the problem arises, the implicit assumption that magic is "a force that flows through the world". It involves thinking of magic as if it is a tangible thing. Gilean's desired metaphysic is one in which "magic" is as intangible as art. Yes you can broadly point at a painting and say "that's art" and at a hairbrush and say "that isn't", but it would obviously be nonsensical to have such things as a "Detect Art" spell or an "Anti-Art field".
"Supernatural" and "Natural" Fantasy
I'll use these, from now on. They are better than mine.
You list D&D as light fantasy but how would you categorize Eberron or FR?
Eberron I know not enough about, but magic at least seems integrated in the setting, not an afterthought. FR is pretty standard D&D, but don't know things about the Weave, either. I'll work an analysis if something is given to analyse.
While I agree that having a clear distinction between magical and non-magical leads to magic feeling tacked-on it is an important game mechanic and makes sense if we assume there is something fundamentally different about magic than the other forces that flow through the world.
If, say, antimagic field only affected spells, and animal-affecting spells were revised, would there be other problems (assuming relevant spell levels would change)? Magic can be different than other forces. That is supernatural fantasy. Sometimes it is appropriate, like in sci-fi. I just don't like it. In natural fantasy I prefer to differentiate spellcasting and magic. The former is manipulation of the latter. I would have no problems against antispell field, for example. But, magic, in and of itself, is intrinsic to truly magical world. It is present, much like the laws of science are present in our world. They might not be relevant at all levels (like forces that are not gravity are irrelevant on planetary scale), but are still present. They are natural.
It depends on the setting of course but the most common sources of magic are alternate planes of reality, spirits in nature and a gift from the gods.
Different planes would lead to supernatural fantasy. Nothing wrong with that, once again. I would play Call of Cthulhu, given chance.
Many sources besides inner talent (a relatively usual one you forgot) can be natural. At least one of my worlds has some spellcasting, divine to be exact, to come from channeling power from deities, demons or such. But, then, Sun is a god (double-aspected, but anyway), which is quite natural fantasy. A god of sun that wouldn't have an effect on the sun even if slain would be more supernatural fantasy. Using power from such entities does not supernatural fantasy make.
If in this fantasy world it is the same situation just with more "true believers" then why wouldn't magic be viewed as supernatural and separate?
Be my guests, I say. But, take a look at history and mythologies. In Norse mythology, Balder, the god of light or sun or something like that will be killed. All the world will go dark. In the stories of Australian aboriginals, the world (or island at least, I am no expert) was shaped by entities living in the era of dreams (whatever the actual term is). Many animistic cultures believe(d) that everything had a spirit. None of these show clear separation of magic and natural things, as they are inherently entwined. It creates better worlds, IMHO.
That is again because designers find it hard to think of the world as a separate entity, they tie it to our own world too closely so they come up with things such as Supernatural abilities and Magical Beast creatures so we can continue to apply our own cultures, views and folklore to the world.
Agreement.
And Arcane/Divine is a distinction that arises from religious and non-religious magic and has been held onto since the original version of D&D.
Setting-specific. Highly. Some of my worlds use it, some don't.
old Tolkien notions of Natural vs. Magical
I am not quite sure about Tolkien making the distinction. If anyone knows about the matter, feel welcomed to enlighten us.
Please elaborate.
Natural fantasy doesn't make the artificial distinction between natural and magical, or doesn't trumpet it around, at least. I like it because it gives certain feel to a setting (read mythologies, George R. R. Martin, Robert Holdstock [Merlin codex, at least]). For historical games, such feel is almost necessity. Doing magic is often, but hardly always, at least possible for all people, in some form. It could be said that only rituals are actually called spells in such worlds, while others are only natural talent or the blessings of gods. Often, spells are not all too flashy, but they may be. I'll stop before adding even more preferences here.
Good work as always, Gil.
Thanks. That "as always" is very surprising.
Natural fantasy doesn't make the artificial distinction between natural and magical, or doesn't trumpet it around, at least. I like it because it gives certain feel to a setting (read mythologies, George R. R. Martin, Robert Holdstock [Merlin codex, at least]). For historical games, such feel is almost necessity. Doing magic is often, but hardly always, at least possible for all people, in some form. It could be said that only rituals are actually called spells in such worlds, while others are only natural talent or the blessings of gods. Often, spells are not all too flashy, but they may be. I'll stop before adding even more preferences here.
I'm not sure which Martin you're talking about, but the magic in aSoIaF is considered distinctly Other. Indeed there's this whole metaphysical setup where magic has more or less stopped working in the world, and is slowly returning with the Dragons.
Thanks. That "as always" is very surprising.
I'm referring to the other threads you've contributed to in Redgar's and elsewhere on the board, I don't post often, but I do read a lot of the articles, and your name keeps popping up in many of the better threads. You also take a great deal of heat most of the time so I thought it high time somebody said something nice to you.
Anyway, what about psionics? How does it fit into your view of magic systems?
I'm not sure which Martin you're talking about, but the magic in aSoIaF is considered distinctly Other. Indeed there's this whole metaphysical setup where magic has more or less stopped working in the world, and is slowly returning with the Dragons.
George R. R. Martin, IIRC. Who wrote the books.
I have just read the 3rd part, so please no horrible spoiling from thereon.
For example, that the wolves appeared in the exact number they did and that (some of) the Starks are skinchangers is kind of natural. Especially if the free folk were asked. The dragons coming back brings spells back, the wall has stood there for quite a while, for example. But, the key point, they don't point and say "damn, that is so supernatural there." Horrible (in the case of Others) yes, but it doesn't seem to come from somewhere else (as in Call of Cthulhu).
I'm referring to the other threads you've contributed to in Redgar's and elsewhere on the board, I don't post often, but I do read a lot of the articles, and your name keeps popping up in many of the better threads. You also take a great deal of heat most of the time so I thought it high time somebody said something nice to you.
Thanks again.
Anyway, what about psionics? How does it fit into your view of magic systems?
No special treatment. Just another type of magic. Incarnum probably too, even if I have no idea on the workings of it.
George R. R. Martin, IIRC. Who wrote the books.
By "which Martin" I meant "which of his books" rather than "which guy called Martin.
I have just read the 3rd part, so please no horrible spoiling from thereon.
I'll try not to.
For example, that the wolves appeared in the exact number they did and that (some of) the Starks are skinchangers is kind of natural. Especially if the free folk were asked. The dragons coming back brings spells back, the wall has stood there for quite a while, for example. But, the key point, they don't point and say "damn, that is so supernatural there." Horrible (in the case of Others) yes, but it doesn't seem to come from somewhere else (as in Call of Cthulhu).
On the other hand one of the Maesters fairly specifically talks about one of the links in the Maester's chain being for "Magic", and he fairly explicitly says "magic doesn't work". The Others do sort of come from Elsewhere, it's just that "elsewhere" in this case means "beyond the Wall" rather than "another dimension". Furthermore the Red Lord Ryloth (or however you spell it) that Millisandre worships actually *does* feel pretty damned alien, and very much feels like a new presence in the world (although that being said, it might be older in Braavos).
I do see your point, though, it's just that often the line between your categories is nowhere near as clear as in others.
By "which Martin" I meant "which of his books" rather than "which guy called Martin.
Oh. I haven't read anything besides ASoIaF, to give a complete description.
I do see your point, though, it's just that often the line between your categories is nowhere near as clear as in others.
To get people thinking about matters, use a (slight) hyperbole. Then give up a bit at time.
The difference isn't clear, in Martin's case. That is all that is needed. Clear line kills traditional fantasy.