"We treat magic as science" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

…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…

48% said "yes, we treat magic as a science"
22% said "no, we do not treat magic as a science"

Yes. As it should be.
If done right, Magic should require vigorous attention to detail and preparation. How is that not Science?
If "anything goes" it's bad magic. Duh.

Magic is either science (this is the way the world works – if you say these words/ employ these ingredients/ observe these taboos, etc – then you WILL get these results) or it is politics (one must persuade the god or spirit to do the thing, and no combination of prayers, offerings, and sacrifices is GUARANTEED to obtain the result if the supernatural being isn't in the giving vein today).

Magic was science… it was a way to make sense of the cause and effect of the world.

And as A C Clarke said. Science and technology at a sufficiently high level is indistinguishable from magic…

When writing wargames rules you have to treat magic as measurable/definable otherwise you can't have a rule. Interestingly I'd call that engineering not science, but that would be a whole other subject. Even if you invoke the gods you need to throw a die to see what they think which is a mechanism, unless you are literally going to make the player perform his incantation and see what happens; which is risky if he were to get it right.

Magic was science

I've always held that ancient astrologers were just good enough at math to use the positions of the planets to tell time and use the sky as a common reference.

"Let's see … based on what I know about King Nextoneover, he's having a new kid in 7 months or so. His army is going to fight barbarians to the East. They will be back in 8-10 ,onths, then stand down, so the best lull would be aroudn then, which matches distraction with a new kid (or twins, I surmise). We're due for a drought at the start of the Spring this year. So … we attack them in 9 months. Um, we'll see Mars, Venus, and Jupiter then … oh … Mars will just be entering Scorpio then. That's what I tell them."

Counting 270-something days is easy math, but prone to losing count and loss of synchronization amoung multiple actors over such a long time. Especially if you're busy avoiding cholera, starvation, and raiders.

Mechanically executing a planetary motion model is high-end, but achievable secondary school math. Setting it up and seeding it with the right data is a ways beyond that, so not achievable to people who haven't specifically studied that material. Since the general population still holds that secondary school math is arcane and dangerous knowledge … dark magic!

you have to treat magic as measurable/definable otherwise you can't have a rule

Depends on what you mean by a "rule".

If you mean a rule as a part of a (Hilbert) formal system, where every time it is executed under the same conditions, you get the same result, then yes. This is something that could be adjudicated by a simple computer program.

If you go to an interpretive rule, where human beings interpret the outcome, rather than calculate it, then not so much. The challenge with leaving the formal system behind is that the result is not consistent. In concept, we would like magic to be more like this. Practically, for a wargame or RPG, we don't want it to be too unbounded, lest the game lose its balance.

A good example of this type of rule (not for magic) is in the collaborative Cthulhu-mythos game, Death May Die. The rules say something like "If there are two ways to interpret a rule in a given situation, pick the one that is the worst for the players." Fits the theme of the game. Avoids writing hundreds of clarifications for specific situations, especially with overlapping rules. And doesn't let the interpretation run wild.

For a magic system in a wargame, you can start with a concept like the magic using figure's player describes the desired effect, but the target interprets and applies the effect.

Obviously, you need more than that. You want some constraints on what can be written and some on how it can be interpreted. We limit the number of words that can be used, no numbers, and no "game terms" (i.e., figures in situ don't know what a "hit point" is). There are different standard mandatory and optional terms for different spell types. Standard terms limits the ability to interpret.

It requires players to buy into the system on both sides, otherwise the first spell chutes the game into a violent and endless argument over semantics. This is not the only system that has that risk space.

"I meant for all the goblins in the front rank, not just the front goblin in the rank to get the full force of the fireball."
"But you get it?"
"Yeah … tricky but legit. … but that is going to be such a spectacularly powerfull kill that I think all your gobbies need to make a morale check."
"Unexpected, but righteous. How about the half of them closest to the firecracker?"
"OK. Cool."

My definition of rule was wargames rule i.e. what chance on a die, what range effect radius etc. I like the Cathulu interpretation of responding to alternatives and may pinch that for future versions of my rules.