Soft Magic, Hard Magic - who cares?!

[Naomasa298]

We've had this discussion several times, and I've always come down on the side of soft magic, where it is largely undefined. But I've come to a realisation.

Who cares?

No one cares about a story because of "cool magic mechanics". Whether that's Rand al-Thor's ability to use it without going mad, Paul Atreides' precognition or whatever the hell Gandalf can do that morning, none of it is important. What people read stories for is for the characters, their journeys and obstacles they must overcome, and how it affects them. Your mechanics will be memorable ONLY if the characters resonate. Mechanics will not a good story make - they are ALL, soft or hard, plot devices.

Nobody would remember that the spice must flow if Paul just lay around smoking it, got high and just waved his hand at the end, summoned a few sandworms and said "I'm Emperor now, yo."

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Luxuria]

I am honestly opposite of you in this regard. The magic mechanics of a story matter a lot of me. I kind of hate hand-wavy magic and 'well, Gandalf is powerful, so magic!' I think it cheapens the story and falls too much into Magic ex Machina. Any problem the characters have are magically solved, because Gandalf or some other unspecified magic source. I don't like it. Because I WANT to know how to world is built and HOW the magic WORKS.

I am very much about hard magic and systems that make logical sense. The softest I will go is Harry Potter. Because they have wands and spells can be made up, but also have consequences. I think for me, a soft magic system is not my jam because magic is used to get out of situations, has less consequences and the author doesn't need to use logic and imagination to get characters out of sticky situations. To me, magic is another 'tool' a character can use and should have limits.

I won't read stuff with flimsy magic and the systems of magic matter to me so much.

 

[Naomasa298]

falls too much into Magic ex Machina.

Only if you write it as such. It's not too difficult to write a soft magic system and NOT have it as a magic ex machina. In fact, a good story demands that you do so. Can you point to a story where it is treated like that? Where the protagonists simply find some powerful magic and use it to resolve everything? It's almost always foreshadowed and comes with its own trials to overcome.

 

[Banespawn]

The characters are always of paramount importance. That doesn't make anything else unimportant by comparison.

As @Luxuria noted, with a soft magic system, there is a danger of Deux ex Machina. Yes, it's not too difficult to avoid, as you say.

Brandon Sanderson is always brought up in these discussions (usually by me), but he lays it out perfectly in his first law of magic:

An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

Written another way, it could be, "Make sure you foreshadow properly." He's talking about magic specifically, and it relates to the larger discussion of hard vs soft magic. Neither one is better than the other. They are simply opposite sides of the same coin. They have different pros and cons.

Gandalf is soft magic, but he doesn't really solve problems with magic. He defeated the Balrog more with his wits than his magic and paid a high price for it. The ring, at least in Frodo's hands, was hard magic. The only thing it could do was turn him invisible, and that came with a cost as well, because it enabled Sauron and the Nazgul to track him.

I typically lean toward harder magic systems. I like the cleverness necessary for such designs. That said, the magic is much softer in my Arch story. I want to inject more wonder into the story. Plus, the story includes fallen gods who still have a great deal of power. I have some general rules for them, but nothing that would be considered hard magic.

Blood Oath has a harder magic system, but even then, it's not to the level of a typical Sanderson system. There are certain things that have to be strictly defined in order to make the plot twist and the ending work. My plot twists often come from the magic, which is why they so often have rules.

I have a law of magic that I would add to Sanderson's list: The rarity of a given magic should be proportional to the strength of said magic.

In other words, if magic is ubiquitous, it should be weak. If magic is very strong, it should be very rare. Relate that to real life. Hundreds of millions of people own guns. Very few people have the ability to launch nukes.

 

[Trish]

We've had this discussion several times, and I've always come down on the side of soft magic, where it is largely undefined. But I've come to a realisation.

Who cares?

No one cares about a story because of "cool magic mechanics". Whether that's Rand al-Thor's ability to use it without going mad, Paul Atreides' precognition or whatever the hell Gandalf can do that morning, none of it is important. What people read stories for is for the characters, their journeys and obstacles they must overcome, and how it affects them. Your mechanics will be memorable ONLY if the characters resonate. Mechanics will not a good story make - they are ALL, soft or hard, plot devices.

Nobody would remember that the spice must flow if Paul just lay around smoking it, got high and just waved his hand at the end, summoned a few sandworms and said "I'm Emperor now, yo."

Do you agree or disagree?

I don't care either way, honestly. The only thing I care about, hard or soft, is if you give it a limit or a rule, don't f*cking break it because your characters are in a corner. You've got at most three lines to explain it in a way that doesn't make me roll my eyes and chuck the book across the room. All powerful, do anything at any time soft magic would ruin a book anyway, so I can't imagine anyone doing it on purpose.

 

[Naomasa298]

That doesn't make anything else unimportant by comparison.

It does make it unimportant in my view, in the sense that the choice is not, in itself, going to make or break your story.

In other words, if magic is ubiquitous, it should be weak. If magic is very strong, it should be very rare. Relate that to real life. Hundreds of millions of people own guns. Very few people have the ability to launch nukes.

That depends on the story. Powerful magic CAN be abundant if you're writing a story about godlike wizards or literal gods. Your average mortal might not be able to use it but if your story is about the gods themselves, then everyone and their brother can use what would be, by objective standards, powerful magic. Of course, "powerful" is relative to what the other characters in the story can do.

Equally, I've seen stories where everyone can use powerful magic, but are constrained from doing so because of, for example, political factors or customary convention, and run a risk if they break the convention.

 

[Luxuria]

Only if you write it as such. It's not too difficult to write a soft magic system and NOT have it as a magic ex machina. In fact, a good story demands that you do so. Can you point to a story where it is treated like that? Where the protagonists simply find some powerful magic and use it to resolve everything? It's almost always foreshadowed and comes with its own trials to overcome.

I still don't like it. It feels cheap and the author just using it to forward the plot. I think of Lord of the Rings with the Balrog and honestly, some stuff in the later Oz books by Baum. It's just too convenient and powerful, because the reader doesn't know the limits of the power. Which drive me nuts. On the other hand, the system can be TOO inflexible. (See the Anime, Hunter x Hunter) and things get boring. (If I have to hear the main character declare his power move one more time, I am going to scream.) So, I feel there is a happy medium, where the parameters are set, but also allow for creativity on part of the writer.

 

[Banespawn]

It does make it unimportant in my view, in the sense that the choice is not, in itself, going to make or break your story.

As you say below, it depends on the story. The decision to use a hard or soft magic system generally goes hand in hand with the development of the plot. If writers are creating them independent of each other, they are likely to run into problems.

That depends on the story. Powerful magic CAN be abundant if you're writing a story about godlike wizards or literal gods.

Call it a guideline then, rather than a law. I can imagine stories that break my own law, but in general, I think it's a good rule of thumb. The stronger the magic, and the more common that magic is, the more the magic will change the world. If you don't introduce ways to limit that, the setting may not feel believable.

It really harkens back to Sanderson's second law:

Limitations > Powers

If there are no practical limits on what the magic can do, then every problem can be solved by magic, and that isn't very interesting IMO.

 

[Luxuria]

Equally, I've seen stories where everyone can use powerful magic, but are constrained from doing so because of, for example, political factors or customary convention, and run a risk if they break the convention.

This is interesting as a restriction. Because none of my character or myself would have thought about social restrictions. Like, in my stories, if something is possible, it's going to happen. Nothing goes too far- but there are consequences. Like for example, my discussion on here about touch telepathy for the lore of my story. It devolved into curiosity about cannibalism as a way to create a more permanent connection between characters. Also, why would characters be subject to social restrictions? I think that would make a boring story.

 

[Banespawn]

I typically lean toward harder magic systems. I like the cleverness necessary for such designs. That said, the magic is much softer in my Arch story. I want to inject more wonder into the story. Plus, the story includes fallen gods who still have a great deal of power. I have some general rules for them, but nothing that would be considered hard magic.

I should note that the existence of these fallen gods is based on rules I have established for gods in my universe.

I have three other story ideas that play off of those rules as well.

Equally, I've seen stories where everyone can use powerful magic, but are constrained from doing so because of, for example, political factors or customary convention, and run a risk if they break the convention.

This is what I meant by the setting not feeling believable.

In our world, yes, political factors, along with the threat of retaliation, keep countries from launching their nukes. That works because access to nukes is very limited. If every person in the world had nukes, there would be no political treaties, laws, or social conventions that would stop people from using them. 99% of the people in the world would be dead within a matter of minutes if everyone had nukes, and the other 1% wouldn't last much longer.

There is no law that has ever been made that someone didn't break, no social convention that hasn't been ignored. There needs to be real limits, not just everyone agreeing to play nice.

This is similar to a very common convention in fantasy, one that always annoys me. Magic users are super powerful, yet somehow, they are oppressed by those without magic through laws and social norms. If the magic isn't sufficiently limited in some way, how am I to believe that people without magic could suppress those with it? The Xmen is a good example of this. Mutants are very often reviled and attacked by non-mutants. At times, mutants hide their abilities out of fear. They tend to have very limited powers, though. Most superheroes employ a hard magic system. We know exactly what Wolverine can and can't do. They also come up with ways to further limit those powers, like building the Sentinels, or the collars that they used in Deadpool 2.

The stronger the magic gets, the harder it will be to make the reader believe that the magic users can be oppressed, unless it's by more powerful magic users. Dave Duncan's "A Man of his Word" series does exactly that. There are distinct levels of magic. Those at the highest level can subjugate those below them and force them to do their bidding. It comes down to power. Generally, those with the most power win. Numbers can help, but only to a point.

 

[Luxuria]

This is what I meant by the setting not feeling believable.

100% agree. And is another gripe I have with Harry Potter. These fucking wizards wouldn't be 'hiding' their powers. I mean, Voldemort? Really??? Also, what is Muggle Jail to a wizard? Like, no.

There is no law that has ever been made that someone didn't break, no social convention that hasn't been ignored. There needs to be real limits, not just everyone agreeing to play nice.

EXACTLY! You put into words exactly what I was thinking. And yeah, if you're gonna add a magic power to the story, what are the possible ways it could be used by evil or misused? I am always thinking that. What is the most creative way one could use this power, if this world had 0 laws? And who would use it this way and why? (If you can't tell, most of my characters are anti-heroes or just straight up gray or evil. So, yeah. I'm always thinking like this when it comes to magic.)

 

[Trish]

The stronger the magic gets, the harder it will be to make the reader believe that the magic users can be oppressed, unless it's by more powerful magic users. Dave Duncan's "A Man of his Word" series does exactly that. There are distinct levels of magic. Those at the highest level can subjugate those below them and force them to do their bidding. It comes down to power. Generally, those with the most power win. Numbers can help, but only to a point.

Yes... if you're relying on magic to oppress magic that does get boring very quickly. And I agree that laws and such are only going to work if someone more powerful is the one enforcing those rules. Wolverine's collar wasn't magic, it was tech. Similarly, you can give lesser magic users a hand up to more level ground by not beating their powers, but subduing them.

In the series I'm currently working on there are Fae, Gods, etc. They are extremely powerful, but they are not untouchable, even by mortals. It's much more work for a mortal or lesser magic person to subdue them, but it is not impossible.

 

[Naomasa298]

It really harkens back to Sanderson's second law:

If there are limits, there's no need to explicitly explain what they are or why to the reader, or even define them. I can't think of too many stories where that is actually an issue, hard or soft. Just like any horror story doesn't explicitly need to define the monster's powers. King never really explains the limits of what Christine or Pennywise can do.

 

[Naomasa298]

This is interesting as a restriction. Because none of my character or myself would have thought about social restrictions. Like, in my stories, if something is possible, it's going to happen. Nothing goes too far- but there are consequences. Like for example, my discussion on here about touch telepathy for the lore of my story. It devolved into curiosity about cannibalism as a way to create a more permanent connection between characters. Also, why would characters be subject to social restrictions? I think that would make a boring story.

In his case, because any wizard who violates them ends up with all other wizards ganging up on him. That's what I mean by "social restrictions" - the restrictions aren't hard limits on their powers.

 

[Naomasa298]

This is what I meant by the setting not feeling believable.

That depends whether or not the author can make it believable. It is not inherent to whether the system itself is hard or soft.

 

[Naomasa298]

My point is this. Whether your magic system is hard or soft, is largely irrelevant because as long as it fulfils the plot requirements, it doesn't matter. This isn't a discussion of whether one is better than the other. If you prefer a hard system over a soft one, go for it. That's your choice, and it's up to you to make it work.

But in itself, your choice doesn't make your story more or less interesting. A hard magic system can drive plot, introduce restrictions, provide intriguing mechanics. A soft system can do all of those too. It's what you do with whatever your choice is that's more important.

 

[Luxuria]

My point is this. Whether your magic system is hard or soft, is largely irrelevant because as long as it fulfils the plot requirements, it doesn't matter. This isn't a discussion of whether one is better than the other. If you prefer a hard system over a soft one, go for it. That's your choice, and it's up to you to make it work.

That's a fair point. But the magic system does effect the story and should. It is an important element in a fantasy story both in plot and lore. Again, I don't care much for soft magic and that's what doesn't matter. But in a story, the magic plays a large role.

 

[Banespawn]

If there are limits, there's no need to explicitly explain what they are or why to the reader, or even define them. I can't think of too many stories where that is actually an issue, hard or soft. Just like any horror story doesn't explicitly need to define the monster's powers. King never really explains the limits of what Christine or Pennywise can do.

I'm not that familiar with those books/movies. I never watched IT, and I think I saw Christine, but it was probably 40 years ago.

Given that, I may be wrong, but I suspect that what they can do is implicitly defined. If the character is shown to do A, B, and C early in the story, and never shown to do anything else, then we implicitly know what they can do. If suddenly at the end of the story, the character does Z, that's going to break the story, whether we're talking about a hard or soft system.

That depends whether or not the author can make it believable. It is not inherent to whether the system itself is hard or soft.

That bit wasn't in regard to soft or hard systems. It was about the idea of power vs rarity. Making magic both very powerful and very common can be a problem in either type of system.

 

[Naomasa298]

That's a fair point. But the magic system does effect the story and should. It is an important element in a fantasy story both in plot and lore. Again, I don't care much for soft magic and that's what doesn't matter. But in a story, the magic plays a large role.

Again, that's not the point. Whatever magic system you choose, the same thing applies. You need interesting characters who the readers invest in more than you need magic, whether it's hard or soft.

 

[Naomasa298]

That bit wasn't in regard to soft or hard systems. It was about the idea of power vs rarity. Making magic both very powerful and very common can be a problem in either type of system.

It wasn't really what I was discussing in this thread though. It's more the idea that people regard one as superior to the other, and focus more on it than on their story and characters. It's like when people get so lost in the idea of worldbuilding that they've come up with entire economic systems, and then end up with this wonderful world which they have no idea what to do with.