New Spell: Prognostis

Prognostis

By weaving the magics of time and consciousness around himself, the sorcerer sees into the future a short distance.

The GM narrates some vague and "just off-screen" moments in the session's immediate future. After that narration, the player rolls six d20s, reveals them only to the GM, and chooses one of the results. Then, the GM chooses one of the results. Alternate choosing until the player and GM both have three results.

The next three d20 rolls that would be made by the PCs are replaced by the player's chosen results (the player chooses which result to use and when, each only being used once). Likewise, the next three d20 rolls made by an NPC or monster are replaced by the GM's chosen results, in the order he/she chooses.
________________________________________

The idea with this spell is that the caster gets a flash of immediately subsequent events. A couple rounds of combat, or a minute of exploration. The GM could reasonably give the caster some info about the future of the game session without revealing too much.

If there is a falling scythe trap ahead, the sorcerer could envision the party rogue sliced in half just up the hallway. If a monster is going to ambush the party, the caster could witness the moment through the creature's eyes, so the party knows where the creature is coming from, but not what it is.

The dice results part of the spell is meant to simulate a moment in which the player knows what can happen, but not exactly what will happen, especially considering that each choice they make, and that the NPCs and monsters make in response, changes what is possible for the remainder of the spell's effect.

I think this spell should be a level 6 spell. Just a feeling.

The origin for this spell idea is that all future-seeing spells in D&D suck. At level 9, you get BS like Foresight, which gives you narrative advantages, but virtually no mathematical effect (+2 AC and Reflex? Come on....).

D&D Classes without Math: Magic-user

Source

Wizard, Magic-user, arcanist, etc. It is a staple of D&D, and perhaps the single most interesting class, based solely on their capabilities. Spells are essentially the only common thread (mechanically speaking) through all the iterations of D&D, and wizards are the undisputed masters of spells.

But what does that mean when you take out the math?

Well, that question has perplexed me for months. This post was supposed to go out with the rest of the "without Math" posts. Clearly, it did not...

Because I can't really say what a math-less magic-user would look like. It has a kind of backwards quality about it that the other classes do not. Every fighter can do the same things, as far as the game is concerned. The details about how they do it, i.e. what weapons they use, how much armor they wear, whether they focus on Dexterity or Strength...none of it really matters. They are still a fighter because they do fighter stuff. Hit things with weapons, absorb some damage, protect the less combative party members, run into the danger.

But...what is magic-user stuff? Fireball? Magic missile? Scribe Scroll? Reading magic? There is an argument to be made that, yes, that is magic-user stuff. If you can do those things, you are a wizard. But not every magic-user ever learns magic missile or fireball, or how to scribe scrolls, or even how to read magic. As more and more spells are printed, and the boundaries of what magic can and cannot do (and how easily it can or cannot do it) has expanded, we have found that very specific types of casters are now viable. Casters that don't use spellbooks. Casters that even change the very idea of how mortals can access magic.

Also, "fireball" and "protecting the squishy guys" are not the same level of abstraction. "Fireball" would be better described as "AoE damage." "Magic Missile" is best described as "unavoidable magic damage that's cheap." Of the four core classes, none but the magic-user can do those things. But is an illusionist, who knows no damaging spells at all, a magic-user then?

Must we abstract further and higher? Maybe the magic-user is the class that makes sweeping changes to the environment the party is in, either clearing obstructions or creating them. This definition would then include things like knock and illusory terrain, which are yet more staples of the D&D wizard. Looking over the wizard spell list from 3.5, I think this definition is rather complete. But it is so general that it could take any in-game form whatsoever. Wizard, sorcerer, illusionist, evoker, swordmage, abjurer, warlock...even divine casters could fit within this definition comfortably.

And yet, this definition leaves us with nothing but "casts spell" as the 'math-less' portion of a magic-user. Essentially, we're back where we started.

We don't want to have to write up all these different classes, because we would never be done. If we want to be able to write up a coherent set of rules for all magic-users (math-free, of course), we have two options:

1. Make it wizards only. If you can cast arcane spells without a spellbook, it's because you are a monster or demon or dragon and not a PC. Humanoid races have only one way to learn and use magic, and that's spells and spellbooks. If you take D&D as written, remove every non-wizard arcane casting class, you have this system. There is still a lot of room here. Every type of wizard specialist is available. Spell selection is wide open and creates meaningful differences between all wizards.

OR

2. Make it up as it becomes relevant. Have no written rules in your system for spells and magic. Instead, make magic entirely an in-game discovery and learning process. If you want to have the PCs fight a dark mage, write up the basics of how that guy knows/can use magic. This could be any micro-system of your choosing. The most obvious is a spellbook with a finite number of spells. What system you use to prevent characters from casting these spells endlessly each day is up to you. Then, if the PCs decide to investigate this dude's magic (presumably after turning him into a fresh corpse), they can pursue it, and you'll know exactly how it works and how powerful it is.

Magic as Science vs. Magic as Sin

Source

Science is something we teach in school, though most science learned in school is science that was first done over a hundred year ago. Science is a profession, and states across the world fund sciences to maintain high qualities of life and military superiority. Science is something that happens in broad daylight, and you can point to it in the natural world.

The most exciting and (very rarely) dangerous science is done by geniuses in university laboratories or government locations. They act with the acknowledgement and approval of some governing body of officials or intellectuals, even if these experiments may be morally questionable to the public.

Source

These governing bodies also regulate how much of the scientific knowledge and know-how is accessible to the public at large, though often how dangerous an average joe can be with science is less about knowledge and more about acquiring expensive materials. Occasionally, unregulated rogue agents gain materials and make fatal uses of science, and the states and universities immediately move to prevent this kind of action in the future.

If your RPG magic is like science, then you can expect to find potions at your typical merchant's venue, and one or more of your PCs will probably have classical magic training in the form of a wizard college or monastic order. Practicing magic is not surprising, but practitioners of magic that are not part of the normal social structure are surprising and even cause for alarm. They may be hunted in the same way as those who intentionally use magic to cause destruction.

Source

Your RPG with a scientific magic system may also feature a subject within magic that is forbidden. Blood magic, necromancy, demonic pacts, etc. This kind of study is punishable in the strictest sense. Much of the information on these topics is either folklore, or contained in lost magical tomes that somehow escaped destruction. These arts are studied in dark dungeons and hidden temples that pose as organizations.

The taboo inherent with these forms of magic is always related to the sin involved with practicing them. Blood magic involves manipulating the human body as a resource. Necromancy does the same for dead bodies. Demon pacts are deals with evil entities, which will surely help the monster cause pain and suffering, at least to others.

Source

Now, remove the professional magic. That's an RPG with magic as sin.

All magic is done in secret, or in the open with impunity in the confidence that almost no one can stop the sorcerer unless they too plunge their hands in the muck. A mortal person using magic has the same effect as a villain in a movie that kills an innocent person, up close, without batting an eye.

Magic-use proves that the practitioner is willing to make morally abject choices to gain power and get ahead. It is sin in so far as it sells itself. No one has to be convinced as to the usefulness of magic. It draws practitioners in on its own undeniable results. Its pull is especially potent at the highest and lowest rungs of the social ladder, because those people are much more likely to be egomaniacal or desperate, respectively.

Source

And the sin is really in the details, too. It isn't just pouring the blood of the innocent on the pentagram before chanting your 'duras' and 'diras.' It's having your eyes and your teeth pop out of your head while becoming a werewolf, and then eating them once the transformation is complete. Excuse me, I have to go be violently ill because I've just witnessed something I definitely wasn't meant to see.

But the power...oooooh the power.

In a magic as sin game, the players must choose whether they are good, or powerful. Any path that rides the line has to be invented on the spot. The magic itself asks you to compromise your morals or deal with entities that you know are dangerous and deceitful. But your players will gladly risk their characters just to see how far the rabbit hole goes.

In a game with magic as sin, the details can't be written out, they have to be discovered. It's the foot-in-the-door technique. You already broke into this library's restricted section to sneak away with a black magic tome, why not try one of the spells out and drink the blood of a rabbit, just to see if you can really become the fastest man alive? And when that works, why not give the book to the crazy necromancer for the promised 1,000gp? He isn't gonna destroy your village, after all. And hey, why not sacrifice a whole city of people so you can be immortal, like it says on that page you accidentally ripped out of the book before you sold it? You've gone this far already, and besides, the necromancer is gonna turn them all into zombies in a month anyway...

Source

For my money, magic as sin is more provocative than magic as science. When accumulating power is absent of moral impetus (magic as science) then an artificial conflict has to be constructed: other people also gaining power, but these people don't like you for whatever reason.

But when power is inherently corrupting, then the conflict is natural: to preserve existence, the powerless must try to keep power in check, but the means by which to do that are pitiful compared to what the power can do.

And so for the players to be a force for good, they must truly be bright and steadfast, or they must flirt with evil without giving in completely.

Or if they are just muscle for hire looking to make a buck, the temptation of magic is the choice between a modest existence, and potentially infinite wealth (perhaps) at the cost of one's soul.

Drinking Rainwater from a Wolf's Paw Print

Source

If you haven't skimmed it, I highly recommend the Wikipedia page on the Werewolf. In particular, the section on Becoming a werewolf is full of great stuff that our D&D frozen minds would never think of.

Like how some myths propose that simply drinking rainwater from the paw print of any animal was enough to turn you into that creature.

That isn't just good monster lore, that's good magic lore. How different would the magician be if their magical abilities weren't a series of arcane words and arm motions, but a kind of esoteric utilization of the opportunities that the natural world presented to them? It isn't so much about knowing a spell, though a book full of instructions on how to do magical things would still be very important, but rather it's about putting the right components together to make an effect.

I can't help but think about the wizards and sorcerers and such in the games that I've played, and how boring they are as magic-users go. There's almost no mystery to them, and even worse, whatever mystery there was is totally removed once you realize the character has pulled out all their spells in the first session or two.

I'm never surprised by a spellcaster anymore. I'm never shocked at a player's spell selection. Probably because the classes and spells they have to choose from are too utilitarian and not nearly eccentric enough.

Of all the countless hours I have searched the web for game design content (particularly OSR content), no topic has felt more time consuming and unsolvable that making magic less...blah.

And for good reason. Magic is at its best when the situation in-game is the most tense and unpredictable. However, making magic cooler often means making magic more complex, which means players need more time to figure out what their magic does each turn. More time spent on one person's turn slows the game down. Slow turns kill the vibe, which is what we were trying to augment in the first place. It's a Catch-22.

I'm always returning to Tolkien's world, because that is perhaps the single most magical feeling world I have ever had the pleasure of being in. I have gone over and over what makes Tolkien magic so appealing, and part of it is always the fact that it is a story, and not a game. In a story, the magic-user can easily go four chapters without using magic at all, but in-game, if a magician character goes four sessions without slinging a single spell, they will probably be pretty ornery.

Something that I can learn from Tolkien immediately is that magic happens far more in D&D combat than it should. More combat-focused magic is certainly the trend in new-school games, and I find that boring. In a Harry Potter setting, where the entire fantasy world is primarily concerned with the academic pursuit of magic, combat magic is cool and refreshing. But in D&D and Middle Earth, where war and battle and monsters and the like are the main course, making magic combat-centric is the equivalent of doubling down instead of covering your bases.

Swords and bows and armor and monsters and catapults and legendary foes all roaming the battlefield isn't enough for you? You need fiery explosions every six seconds to make combat feel exciting and worthwhile? Nah, man. No thank you. That's over-saturation. One blast of searing light or call of a lighting bolt per story arch is enough for me, I think.

The best way to communicate this kind of magical feel isn't by describing it, but by presenting a list of spells and such to give you an idea of what this means. Hopefully, I'll be posting that soon.

Preparing Spells: Numismamancy

Money makes the world go 'round, because you can't do magic without money.

You live in a world where magic is powered by absorbing the innate power of precious metals like gold, silver, copper, etc. If you want to prepare a spell, you have to hold a coin in your hand and say the magic words in old Draconic.

What the words mean, no one knows anymore. But everyone knows what they do.

The coin in your hand disappears, and suddenly your body is filled with a jolt of magical energy ready to be released as a spell at your earliest request.

Buuuuut, this isn't an exact science. The charge of energy you get varies, and depends on the quality of metal.

When you absorb a copper coin, you get the energy required to cast a single spell (randomly) between levels 1-4 (roll 1d4) that you know (you choose). If you can't cast spells of the rolled level, you get a spell of the next highest level you can cast, but when you cast it, it takes effect as though you were a level higher. A silver coin will grant you a single spell of level 1d6, and a gold coin will get you a spell of level 1d8. If you are lucky enough to get your hand around a platinum coin (or equivalent), you'll get a spell of level 1d10, where a roll of 0 means that the metal is so pure that you get a spell of any level you want.

Effectively, you are transmuting the magical energy in the metal into the magical energy needed to prepare a spell. The reason the level of magical energy you get varies is because the level of precious metal in any given coin fluctuates wildly, and non-precious metals and minerals within the coin will interfere with the absorption.

Most spellcasters grab a handful of coins when they are running low on magical energy and absorb their essence all at once. Other magic-users will make a more deliberate show of things, going one coin at a time so that they can work as efficiently as possible.

It's no wonder Evil Wizards lock themselves in towers with chests of gold and gems. Of course dragons would hoard gold and treasure in their lairs, they are the most powerful sorcerers known to exist! All that magic needs some fuel.

Look at all those spells! So many spells!

I LOVE SPELL LISTS AND SO CAN YOU!

Magic systems have what software engineers call a "user interface" (UI) and "system interface" or "back end".

Here's a computer example to help you understand UI vs. back end:

• The ATM at your local bank is a machine in the wall that has slots for money, slots for debit cards, some buttons, a screen, and some other stuff. When you go get money from the ATM, you are interacting with the UI.
• While you are blissfully pushing buttons and getting cash, there is other software running in the background that checks your pin number against the account it read off of your debit card. It then checks the withdrawal you are making against the balance in said account. These processes comprise the back end.

Now, here is an example using the magic system everyone loves to hate, Vancian magic:

• The wizard wakes up early in the morning and prepares spells from his spellbook. These spells each require some amount of (non-fungible) mental space and magical aptitude to prepare, therefore limiting him to a certain number of each level of spell. Once the spell is cast, it is gone from memory and cannot be used until it is prepared again. This is Vancian's UI.
• The player, meanwhile, reads a spell list on her character sheet and chooses which spells to prepare for the day by assigning them to the appropriate spell slots. If her character gets to learn new spells at this juncture, she reads those spells off of a larger spell list in some rulebook and chooses which ones are recorded onto her character sheet, and therefore her character's spellbook. This is Vancian's back end.

Critiques of D&D-style magic always seem to rail against one of these two halves of the system, either the UI or the back end. 

"Ewwwww," they say. "My wizard sucks so much when he doesn't have time to prepare spells. That's sooooo lame." This is a UI complaint.

"Uuuuuuugh," they spout. "Knowing all the spells available to me from the list is so banal. Where's the mystery?" This is a backend complaint.

The first claim is something I think everyone agrees on: vancian magic/spell slot magic/casting-overused-spells is boring as written. It's predictable in combat, and sitting at the table deciding what you will prepare for the day is always a drain on time and immersion.

Yeehaw! That UI can't have a spell-list back end...can it?

But you can add interesting spell components to solve the first problem, and crazy-awesome familiars or wacky spell-dream preparation mini-games to solve the second one.

That still leaves us with the list, however. A big list of everything a wizard can ever do. What usually follows in these critiques is some half-functional attempt at a magic-words system or a rune-magic system or something even more convoluted to increase "fun" and "spontaneity."

If you play D&D in any way even remotely resembling the way I play it, however, then you know these systems will either be trivially different from spell lists and have no impact on the feel of the game, or they will be so imbalanced or time-consuming that you'd be better served just shooting yourself in the foot.

This is not an opinion, this is a law of design: the more subsystems each individual piece of a game must fit into, the more confined you are to the design of those features.

Here's your damn spontaneous wizard!

For a case in point, see D&D 4E. Everything had to be a power, and therefore had to be used in combat, and therefore had to do damage and be useable a very specific number of times per unit-time. It's the Cocktail Weenie Approach. It has to stay on a toothpick. You can do a lot of things with that, but you also can't do a lot of things with that.

What is the single subsystem required to use a spell-list back end? Spell levels.

That's it. You can make anything you want into a spell in a spell-list system, and it will work so long as you assign it the correct level for your play style. Low magic games can move spells up a level or two, high magic games can move spells down a level or two.

Don't want PCs to be able to heal with magic? Take healing spells out.

Want cool blood magic stuff? Add spells with special blood-magic effects, no need for a new class or subsystem of magic.

Take a page out of the 5e book and let some spells be cast at higher levels than they are first listed to make them more powerful and useful in later play.

Make something a ritual by lowering the level and having it take 4 hours to do.

Make one spell a permanent and at-will invocation for a warlock-type character by forcing them to take a graft, or make a pact with a demon, or lose some max-HP, or lose some CON or STR to learn it. Allow wizards to become their spellbooks with magical give-and-take.

Okay okay okay...wait...I've got a knock... two comprehend languages, and... a ray of enfeeblement left.

You can't beat spell-lists and individual spell modules as the most open and creative magic system back end out there. You just can't. Every other kind of "build-it-as-you-go" back end for spellcasting has a mathematically provable limit to the number of spells you can make, and will always have entire "dead zones" of magic effects that just aren't doable with the given selection of runes, power words, range-damage-shape point allocations, etc.

So if you want a more interesting magic system than D&D Vancian as written, here's what you do:

1. First and foremost, scrap all the over-used spells that bore you or (in your opinion) ruin the game. You don't owe your players any access to particular spells SO LONG AS you tell them ahead of time that you will be changing the spell selection.
2. Now, put in a bunch of awesome spells and spell-features (like casting at higher levels or using blood to amplify their effect). Boom. Bad ass.
3. For the love of god, don't just have your wizard pour over their imaginary spellbook for 20 minutes of out-of-game time to prepare spells. Make it interesting! Use familiars instead of spellbooks. Use dice rolls to randomly dole out spells for each level. Something! I'll post other ways to do this in the future.
4. Give your magic-user players something to shake up their usual spells during the game. My vote is for letting them use any crazy component they find as part of a spell if it sounds like it might make sense. Nightmare ashes in a fireball? Hell yeah. Bat guano in your consecrate spell? Um... no, I don't think that does anything.
5. Be generous. Magic is awesome and scary, whether you are in a low magic or high magic system/setting. Let fireballs ignite clothing and blow up buildings. Let magical flying be fast and acrobatic. If you want magic to be cool, you need to let it be dangerous and unpredictable in a narrative way, not a bunch of mechanical ways.

Minimalism in Pen & Paper RPG Design

Three days ago there was a great post about Super Simplified Swords & Wizardry, and minimalist, focused RPG design over at The Rusty Battle Axe.  It is a great post, and you should go read it. But be warned, because it is picking up a lot of equally excellent discussion from other blogs, like The Clash of Spear on Shield, Bat in the Attic, Gothridge Manor, and most recently the counter opinion (also excellent) on Tales of the Rambling Bumblers.

Here is the bulleted list of purposes being thrown around and responded to for this kind of minimalist take on an RPG:

• Focus play on exploration, rather than tactical combat.
• Focus the players to find different and creative solutions to challenges poised by having such limited options. [For those who haven't yet read the other posts, these limited options would include: approximately 2 classes (warrior-type, and thief-type), scroll-only magic use, etc.]
• Highlight the sense of danger and weirdness with regard to the dungeon. [The above-ground world is entirely mundane.]
• Magic items become highly prized. [Because they are super rare.]

With one exception, I think all of these goals are very worthwhile and, indeed, universally desired whether we are talking minimalist games or super-crunchy games. No one wants banal dungeons or boring magic items. Everyone wants some creativity involved in their game, though what tools are the focus of that creativity (e.g. game mechanics, or setting descriptions) is a matter of opinion.

I have a qualm with the first bullet point, because I feel it implies "all combat" within the phrase "tactical combat," and misses an opportunity to differentiate combat that is part of exploration, and combat that is simply there to meet some kind of quota. The best way to understand this is by reading this fantastic post about Bad Trap Syndrome over at Ars Ludi. Essentially everything stated in that post can be equated to your combats as well. Are the monsters in that dungeon room just floating HP and Spell taxes, or do they serve a purpose in the world at large, and in the story, that your players will discover by interacting with them, violently or otherwise?

That being said, I certainly believe that if a 4 page mini-RPG spends 3 pages describing rules for combat and 1/2 a page on exploration, it may give players the wrong idea. And even though their understanding of the game may change on the second and third and fourth session, you still have to get them to sit down and play after that first one. For a counterpoint to this, see here.

Now let's talk about the ways one could implement low magic and minimal class choices.

Minimal Classes:

• Open-ended features. Yeah, +1 to attacks and damage is great for your warrior-type, but it is also entirely non-influential when it comes to that player's decisions in combat. Try something like: +1 to any roll related to tripping, grappling, disarming, or otherwise doing a maneuver in melee combat. This isn't a big bonus, but it has the potential to be a wide bonus, which is what players really want as far as entertainment is concerned. A +1 to attack is just as exciting as a +4 to attack, because even though the +4 is a deeper mechanic, it has the same width, which leads to stereotype characters and choices. Perhaps the thief gets one or two free rerolls during the day, which could equate to a sort of rogue's luck in or out of combat. I like the idea of giving warrior-types flat bonuses, and giving the rogue-types luck-based abilities.
• You gotta have the right tools. This is along the same exact lines as the scrolls-only magic system. Thieves might be better at picking locks, but they still can't do squat without their lock-picking tools. And your warrior might not be great at lock-picking, but if he's just picked up a set of picks and jimmies, let him have a go. This can also apply to weapons. Make everything 1d6 damage, but give 2-handed weapons a +1 to attack rolls, since they are made for maximum destruction.
• Encumbrance is important. If you don't have spells or daily features to make use of, you are removing a classic form of strategy from the game. Adventurers need supplies, but they also can't be bogged down too much. There is a very important balance mini-game that will take place as the party finds treasure and such. I suggest an item slot system based on strength, and an additional option of carrying a backpack to increase that number of slots. Perhaps backpacks can't be worn with heavy armor? Yet another way of asking the players to make interesting choices about their characters. Also, this creates the distinct possibility of a party leaving treasure somewhere, only to come back and get it later, which is an adventure that writes itself.

Low Magic:

• Get rid of +1, 2, 3, 4, etc. magic. So this is more of an opinion, but I think what really sucks all the coolness out of a magic item is knowing that there is a different item out there that serves the same purpose, but with a higher bonus. If you want your magic items to be unique and rare and interesting to your characters, don't give them mechanical bonuses at all. Give them special abilities that cannot be replicated with any other mechanic or ability in the game/game-world.
• Healing once a day. I'm all for no healing potions or healing spells. But I'm also for a sort of once per day second wind feature that can be used whenever the player chooses to regain 1/2 their character's HP. The purpose of this is two fold: it makes combat more dangerous, because there is an easily quantifiable amount of HP your character will have all day, and that is it. Also, it allows the GM a pretty solid way of gauging when an encounter will be taken head-on by the players, and when it will be circumvented. Think about it, healing exists in these games so that players can continue adventuring during the same day. When you give them full HP coming into each encounter, you give them license to treat each encounter the same. I say, your PCs should be exposed to potential combat at all different levels of HP. It isn't until the players know that their primary strategy of kicking-ass and taking-names is going to fail that they will seriously consider a different one.
• Make your monsters cooler and weirder. In a world with fireballs going off every encounter, a group of goblins to fight is fine and dandy. However, in a world where magic is rare and probably less combat oriented, you need a lot more than goblins to give your adventure that epic feel. Terrain features were already mentioned in a previous response, and I second that wholeheartedly. But you also need to give your monsters a scary air of unpredictability. And for god sake take out the lame filler monsters. If the world above your dungeons is mundane, you can still have cults murdering people or bandits attacking caravans. So don't put little green people who have the same M.O. in your dungeons. 

And that's me done.

How to Ruin your Indie RPG: Part 1 - Magic

Look at me! Posting on a Sunday. What a rebel.

So this will be a bit of a series here. A sort of "Thomas Edison's attempt at the light bulb" kind of journal.

So here we go: magic.

Magic is the answer to all of your problems. Or rather, all of your character's/players' problems. Need a door unlocked? Magic. Need to immolate thirty goblins? Magic. Fly over a chasm? Magic. Make something magical? Magic. Stop something from being magical? Magic. Magic. Magic. Magic.

In our brains, magic has no limits. You can't put out a house fire with a sword, but you can put out a house fire with magic. You can't survive in the desert with only a sword, but you can survive in the desert with only magic. So, when you try to make an RPG (a fantasy-style RPG, that is), you have to put in rules, or fluff, or both, that limit how the player characters can use magic.

If you don't, locked doors are no longer locked doors, they are magic taxes. Goblins are no longer enemies, they are experience point checks that you cash in using magic. The BBEG is no longer a threat to humanity, he/she is just an antagonist that hasn't had enough magic thrown at him/her yet.

What are we meager game designers to do in the face of such limitless power?

Limit it! Of course. But how? The way I see it, there are three options:

1. Decide that magic can only do a few things. A la The Last Airbender. Four elements, room for interpretation within the elements, but ultimately, no one is going to auto-unlock a door or mind-control an important NPC.
2. Limit the amount of magic players can do. If you are interested in ways that systems can/do do this, check out this thread.
3. Make magic dangerous, to the point where the wizard will want the rogue to fiddle until their lock pick breaks before they cast that knock spell.

5e D&D does #2, and it adds a lot of flexibility over past editions with things like short rest spell slot recoveries, at-will cantrips, unrestricted number of casts per prepared spells, etc. This is a middle-ground, please-all system, and it works, so if your opinion is "if it ain't broke don't fix it," then power to ya.

But there are an unlucky few of us out there that just can't leave well enough alone.

I want a magic system that doesn't require me to front load all the work of designing spells. I want a magic system that limits casters using in-game realities instead of abstract memory limits. I want a magic system that isn't spelled out like a biology textbook, no schools, no types, no domains, no skill sub-systems. I want a magic system that lets players experiment during play. And lastly, I want a magic system that can represent a wide variety of spellcasters, eschewing the idea of magical colleges or universally readable scrolls for unique backgrounds and power sources.

I have begun believing that the only way to get a system that meets all those needs is to step back and start thinking about magic differently. No more spells. No more neat little effects wrapped up in a convenient package. We need to ask some boilerplate questions like:

What does it mean when you say "My character can do magic?"

Maybe magic is a state of mind. Maybe you focus really hard, and you find a place where there is magic, deep inside of you. It hurts a little to stay in that place, but while you are there only your imagination is the limit.

Maybe magic comes from a thing in the world, like gold or meat or spirits, and you have to eat it, or break it, or wear it, or burn it to release the magic into your body and store it for later use.

I kinda like both of those things. Other magic systems outta left field that you've thought up or seen? Leave them in the comments.