Hard and Soft in Magic Systems and Science Fiction

I've been following a lovely set of arguments lately about the 'types' of magic systems and which ones are better or worse.

For one side of the discussion you can read this blog post by NK Jemisin  or watch this YouTube video by a guy who makes YouTube videos (he seems great, but I don't know anything else about him). For my side you can read... this.

First a few definitions.

What is a Magic System?

Not everybody uses the term this way, but I'm going to go with Brandon Sanderson's definition of a magic system. Your magic system is whatever group of rules and tropes wrap around the superhuman powers of your characters.

In a fantasy setting, your magic system is often CALLED a magic system. It's what happens when a wizard casts a spell or summons a demon or whatever. In a science fiction story, it's the not-yet-possible tech. A warp drive and a Star Wars blaster are just as much a 'magic system' in this sense as Allomancy. And in something like a spy novel or action movie, it's the (sometimes unspoken) different rules of reality that the characters are superhumanly tough, have impossible gadgets that work, are constantly betraying one another, etc. It's the way your world differs from the real one - not in historical facts but in its logic.

What are Hard and Soft Magic Systems?

People often characterize magic systems into hard and soft (they do this with science fiction as well, even if they're not calling the rules of the sci-fi universe a 'magic system', and the terms mean different things, as I'll explain). In both cases 'hard' and 'soft' lie on a continuum - some systems are representative of the extremes, some are in the middle.

A hard magic system is very rule-based and puts a high priority on internal consistency (working the same way every time) and predictability. One paradigm is the magic system of most tabletop role playing games or videogames. When your D&D wizard casts a fireball spell, the damage might be randomized but it is highly constrained - a certain number of dice of damage done in a certain radius with very specific parameters. Sanderson uses Lord of the Rings for an example of hard magic - the One Ring, as used by Hobbits. It has very specific powers (makes them invisible) and very specific limitations (turns them slowly into monsters and lets Sauron find them). It's not as if sometimes Frodo puts the ring on and turns into a giant, or DOESN'T turn invisible, or grows a tail. It's totally mechanistic.

A soft magic system is (I find it hard to explain) less rule based. Magical things happen, and if there are rules behind them, it's not apparent to the readers (sometimes it is suggested that there are strict rules, sometimes it isn't; either way, the reader can't predict what might happen the way a D&D player can loosely predict the outcome of casting a fireball in a specific situation). I would love to give lots of examples of very soft magic systems, but I personally don't like the kind of stories that use them. Neil Gaiman's Sandman is a little like this. The abilities and powers of the magical creatures are sort of lyrical and interesting but not super specific. In Lord of the Rings, Gandalf's powers are soft - it's not at all clear what he can or cannot do, or the cost of doing it, except in the absolutely vaguest terms.

Now, Sanderson himself points out what I think is the key difference to the writer and the reader of these two.

1. A hard magic system gives greater opportunities for the kind of satisfaction you get when a character solves a problem in a clever or interesting way. My favorite example is Naruto. The main character has very specific magical abilities (can duplicate himself, change his appearance, a few others). Other characters have different but also specific abilities. A lot of the payoff of the manga is the way the characters use their abilities strategically to defeat apparently more powerful opponents. In one great scene Naruto duplicates himself, throws a bunch of knives at the bad guy. The bad guy dodges, and 'poof' one of the knives was Naruto himself, disguising his appearance, who is now in position to stab the guy in the back. He took his known abilities and combined them into a clever tactic that gave an advantage on the battlefield.

2. A soft magic system is better at evoking a sense of wonder, of awe, of the mysterious. In a very strong way, soft magic systems conform better to the everyday use of the word 'magical.' Wonderful, special, unique things can happen with soft magic, whereas with hard magic they'd just be breaks in the system (and would be unsatisfying, because in that context they're cheating).

Why do some people prefer the soft magic? 

Like I said, soft magic takes away from the satisfaction of 'clever problem solving.' If the magic system can have any consequence the author desires, that's not cleverness, it's just... the author deciding what happens. 

However, soft magic gives greater opportunity for giving the reader that sense of awe and wonder. Again, I'd love to give a ton of examples, but I personally (this is a matter of taste) have zero interest in these kind of stories. Amazing things can happen, and they can be amazingly cool, even if they can't be representative of clever  problem solving by our heroes.

Soft-magic-preferers sometimes ask the question: why do hard magic at all? If you want a rule-based, concrete system, why not just write sci fi? Why call it magic at all? 

And that brings me to the related but different way 'hard' and 'soft' are used with science fiction, after which I'll wrap up by explaining my personal preference.

What are internal and internal consistency?

Internal consistency is how well your system sticks to its own rules. If your character can cast a fireball spell once a day, does he ever do it twice? Does it ever fail to work without some clear explanation? If the characters are faced with a new problem, and have a magical tool that they've used before to solve it (think spells in Harry Potter), do they try that tool again or do they just 'forget' it's there?

Obviously, hard magic systems put a lot of stock into internal consistency, while soft magic systems deliberately don't. The gods may intervene magically in one thing, then not in the next, and no explanation is needed or (perhaps) desired. Soft magic doesn't ask for internal consistency.

External consistency is asking how the magic system is consistent with what we know about the real world. If you're telling an urban fantasy story, why aren't wizards working in hospitals to heal cancer patients? How was history influenced by those wizards (or not influenced) and why? 

In science fiction, the question is: how plausible is this advanced technology (the 'magic system' of the sci fi world) given what we know about physics?

Most science fiction allows for more or less plausible tech, but it REALLY varies. The Expanse starts out very hard and drifts somewhat. You can argue details - imagining wormhole technology being developed on Earth 10 years from now is VERY externally inconsistent, but if you posit it as being developed a thousand years from now it's arguably less inconsistent (or at least less egregious).

When science fiction pays a LOT of attention to external consistency, we call it hard science fiction. There is obviously a continuum here, and for some reason we allow telepathy to creep into hard science fiction (someone explain that to me) and faster than light space travel (important for storytelling even if it's sadly NOT externally consistent). The softer the sci-fi, the less it tries to convince us that the advanced tech is based in what we know about physics and engineering.

At last, the true difference between sci fi and fantasy

Hard science fiction is MORE concerned with external consistency (compatibility with the rules of the real world) than soft science fiction.

Hard magic systems in fantasy are MORE concerned with internal consistency (compatibility with a made up set of rules and logic that govern the magic system) than soft fantasy magic systems.

Fantasy is ALMOST NEVER concerned with external consistency - at least, in fantasy, the magic system is NOT SUPPOSED to be consistent with the real world. You could have a fantasy about a race of wizards and vampires who live in the shadows of a world that looks like ours, and spend a lot of energy explaining why the 'normal' people don't know about them, but the wizardly powers are NOT going to be based on real-world physics and technology. 

Science Fiction is ALMOST ALWAYS concerned with internal consistency. If phasers or warp drives worked differently on different days depending on the whims of the gods, it wouldn't feel like sci fi. Some stories straddle the line here (Dune anybody?) but generally speaking science fiction always tries to portray its tech as rule-based.

Fantasy VARIES with how concerned it is with internal consistency. Some fantasies use a 'hard' magic system that tries to establish clear rules and then follow them; some don't. I would absolutely argue that hard and soft magic systems are both legitimate instances of fantasy. Greek myths are soft. Brandon Sanderson's books are hard.

Science Fiction VARIES with how concerned it is with external consistency. Hard sci fi goes to great lengths to show us how its tech derives from current understanding of physics and engineering. Think about the Expanse before the alien tech shows up - it's REALLY trying to give a 'realistic' portrayal of near-future space travel (in my opinion very successfully). No soft stuff - no artificial gravity, wormholes, just things that seem like logical progressions - better engineering than we have, but nothing that seems physically impossible. Soft science fiction gives up on that to some extent. Again, think of the alien tech in the Expanse. It's supposed to be following rules (even if we don't know exactly what they are), but it violates the laws of physics as we know them.

Which makes for better stories?

I think it is inarguable that there are wonderful, much-beloved stories in every corner of this chart. You cannot say that 'only' sci fi or only fantasy or only hard or soft version of one of them is conducive to good storytelling.

Now I personally have strong preferences in terms of which stories I like to read and write. Internal consistency is EXTREMELY important to me - if a story violates that I become highly dissatisfied. It's why I don't like Neil Gaiman's writing (gasp!). But I'm NOT trying to say that YOU, dear reader, should find it equally upsetting. If you understand your own preferences it will make you better able to match to the writers that write stories that you will like.

What about Star Wars?

Star Wars is a nice example of all these distinctions by breaking them. People call Star Wars science fiction, but it really isn't - it's a blend of science fiction and fantasy (science fantasy maybe?) The Force isn't even attempting to be externally consistent... but the droids and starships sort of are. A story like this lets you get  some of the best of both worlds - you get blasters and droids figuring out tech-y solutions to problems and the awe of Luke using The Force to guide a torpedo into the Death Star, all in one film. 

What about your own books, Joe?

The Hybrid Helix, like most superhero fiction, is probably a science fantasy. I care a lot about external consistency, but in very specific ways. I postulate very clear deviations from the 'real' rules of physics, but I try to adhere very, very strictly to the laws whenever it falls outside those deviations. Rohan can apply force to his body  - he can fly - in violation of all laws of physics. But once he flies, he gathers momentum, has to deal with air resistance, gravity, he has to decelerate when he gets somewhere - I try to constrain the ways I break the laws of physics. And I spend a LOT of attention to internal consistency - if you notice any discrepancies, it's a mistake on my part, never a deliberate choice I'm making for the sake of the story.

That's my personal philosophy about how to write the stories I want to write. Again, I'm NOT saying this is the only way to write good stories, or the way YOU should write stories (or the sort YOU should read).