"Is Magic Science?" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Fantasy Discussion Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Action Log
04 Oct 2024 5:38 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Utter Drivel boardRemoved from TMP Poll Suggestions boardCrossposted to Fantasy Discussion board
Areas of InterestGeneral Fantasy
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's a terrain expansion for Heroscape, but will non-Heroscape gamers be attracted by the trees?
Featured Workbench ArticleCan a plastic flower become a wargaming shrub? Or maybe a small tree?
Featured Profile ArticleCould you find a purpose for dome-shaped, three-dimensional stickers?
Current Poll
Featured Movie Review
|
etotheipi | 28 Dec 2023 7:06 a.m. PST |
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. – Arthur C. Clarke linkSo, the short word "is" is in the short title. But I am asking in TTWG (and RPGs, if you want), do we treat magic like it is a science? Fireballs have precise ranges and statistical damage distributions. Resistance to magic fire is based on well-defined categories of characteristics. You have logistic and infrastructure support … er … manna … to cast 2 level 3 spells or 3 level 2 spells. Some of this is due to wanting to put them into a structured TTWG format. It's less so for RPGs, where the rules are interpreted subjectively (WRT the milieu and plot) by a referee, but it seems that magic is still very well statted out there as well. There is the argument that if we wanted more "magic" magic, we would need overly complex rules. More than we already have. I think a lot of that could be easily overcome. While I acknowledge that I am in the minority when it comes to liking nomograms and slide rules, the idea of a magician pouring over obtuse diagrams and fiddling with strange artifacts is compelling to me. I think that just overall, we want to subjugate magic to our will, so we want it to conform to our idea of scientific rigor. It's not a supernatural set of phenomena, just one that is outside most people's experience and span of control. Maybe there are other options? Maybe there are scads of TTWG and RPG that don't treat magic like Jane's Necromancy, ones I don't know about? |
advocate | 28 Dec 2023 11:32 a.m. PST |
If 'magic' is entirely predictable under given rules, it's exactly science. If it's not fully understood, if random things can result, it's more like the magic I think of. But actually if you posit magic actually working, then what does make it different from a not-fully-understood technology? |
Lucius | 28 Dec 2023 5:32 p.m. PST |
I believe that the difference is that science by definition arises from the study and harnessing of the natural world. Magic arises from the study and harnessing of the supernatural world. The objection that the supernatural world is just part of the natural world that we don't scientifically understand yet, is a statement of faith. |
Herkybird | 29 Dec 2023 11:02 a.m. PST |
Science needs to have a logical and provable cause and effect, Magic can be predictable, but there is no logical cause for it that can be proven. That is my take on it, anyway. |
jwebster | 29 Dec 2023 4:59 p.m. PST |
Magic is part of telling a story. Most fantasy authors apply some kind of logic or system to how magic is used – in some cases this is the most fundamental aspect of the novel. So how would we have a fun game without some form of predictability of magic? Even random effects are still predictable, with limits as to the success or lack of success of the action Incidentally, if I see something posted by etotheipi, I know there it's going to be worth reading. John |
etotheipi | 30 Dec 2023 8:13 a.m. PST |
All good points. And since we are wargaming, we are modeling, so there has to be come structure. I just feel like we expect too much precision predictability out of magic. Using a fireball has the same feel to the players as using a machine gun. |
Andy ONeill | 30 Dec 2023 8:24 a.m. PST |
Predictable magic is easier than unpredictable. You cast a fireball and there's a clear definition of effect. If you instead invoked fire spirits that would do variable things then you have three options I can think of. The rules define the variability so you have rather more complicated rules. The referee needs to make stuff up. So the ref has to be inventive. Or The player makes stuff up and the ref decides how hard that is to achieve. The Feng shui approach. |
Last Hussar | 31 Dec 2023 6:36 a.m. PST |
Should we make magic unpredictable? (With all players consent obviously.) So the rules say Fireball. Range 20cm, damage 3d6, radius of 3cm You add in a die roll for each. On a 1 it drops short by 5 cm of the nominated target point, on a 6 over by 5cm, even if that takes it to 35cm. Like wise a chance damage is 1d6 or 5d6, the radius is point of impact only or 5cm. It is understood the caster has done nothing different, the conditions are all the same, it's just magic has an inbuilt randomness to it. If a sword breaks, it breaks for a reason, even if that reason is not understood. Magic is just… |
|