Should magic be reliable?
Mark Apolinski
russell wallace wrote:
>
>
> I'd be interested to hear whether other people agree with me that these are the
> four issues involved, and how many agree or disagree with me on the particular
> cases.
Well, these seem to be mainly personal preference issues, but you
asked...
> I've been thinking about the recent discussion concerning the reliability of
> magic, and I've come to the conclusion there are actually four different issues
> involved. I'm curious as to what people think of my analysis. (I've taken the
> liberty of crossposting to .advocacy, and of renaming the thread to something
> on-topic.)
>
> The first issue is reliability.
>
> I think if a mage can do something, and it's well within the limits of
> his abilities, then he should be able to do it consistently unless opposed.
> For example, if a Master of Fire magic tries to do something as simple as
> lighting a campfire, many RPG systems still incur a probability on the order of
> 5-10% of failure, or even disastrous fumble. My feeling is that the
> probability here should be zero; established procedures that are well within
> the bounds of what can be done should always work unless there's something
> specific preventing them.
Agreed, provided that the magic system in question is know to be
reliable in this fashion. For example, most "real life" magic systems
just don't have this kind of reliablility even if you are a master
magician (IMO, opinions differ).
> This may be because my mindset is fundamentally a technological one. Still, I
> think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side here; in
> the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
> dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by sheer
> bad luck. I think some people regard unreliability as making it more genuinely
> magical, though I've never really been able to understand why.
I think the way most systems handle magic is a fundamentally
technological one. For magic to seem "magical" it cannot have a
"technological" or "scientific" feel.
> The second issue is communication.
>
> I'm generally not willing to attempt to play a trained, professional mage
> unless I have a clear understanding of how magic works in the game world,
> because otherwise I don't have the knowledge my character would have, and
> therefore I don't have the information I need to play him.
>
> For example, if the rules say "A natural roll of 90% or higher causes a
> spellcasting attempt to go badly wrong, regardless of other factors", I regard
> it as something of a design flaw, but I can work with it. If I'm told nothing
> more than "Magic is unreliable, and sometimes goes badly wrong", I can't work
> with that, because I have no idea how often it goes wrong, which is something I
> need to know in order to make decisions on behalf of my character. This is
> probably related to the general issue of requiring specific knowledge of the
> rules governing an area of the game world before one can play a character with
> expertise in that area; some people need more specific information than other
> people do.
>
> (Note that I can play an untrained wild talent without knowing how magic works
> in the game world, because neither does my character. Indeed, I've done this
> and enjoyed it. This requires a lot of trust in the GM; for me at least, it
> tends to require that my character has a decent selection of other skills,
> because I can't rely on magic.)
This is, I think, a personal preference issue only. I can usually accept
whatever parameters are presented, although more detail is of course
better.
> The third issue is the nature of the laws of magic.
>
> In order for me to play even an untrained wild talent mage, and do a good job
> of it, there are some restrictions on what the laws governing magic can be,
> even if I don't know those laws at the start of the game. Basically, I need
> them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially, scientific, even
> if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
This doesn't make sense to me at all. What you're dealing with is
*magic* not science. Magic may not *be* objective and impartial.
> The fourth issue is suspension of disbelief.
>
> In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some level
> it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if they're
> different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of the
> characters or players know them.
Again, this is a fundamentally modern paradigm. Historically, this way
of looking at the world is very new. In the periods when "magic"
flourished, people did not think this way. I think that the only issue
regarding suspension of disbelief is whether or not the suspender can
incorporate the magical worldview without difficulty. This is simply a
personal preference thing.
> For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that belief
> directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
> genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
> that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the game
> without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I do.
> (So do my characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.) I suspect
> I'm in a small minority here though.
I don't know if it's an issue, since I have no trouble accomodating
alternative mindsets, even though my normal, real-life one is highly
rational and scientific. I think it's just a matter of practice.
Mark
russell wallace
I've been thinking about the recent discussion concerning the reliability of
magic, and I've come to the conclusion there are actually four different issues
involved. I'm curious as to what people think of my analysis. (I've taken the
liberty of crossposting to .advocacy, and of renaming the thread to something
on-topic.)
The first issue is reliability.
I think if a mage can do something, and it's well within the limits of
his abilities, then he should be able to do it consistently unless opposed.
For example, if a Master of Fire magic tries to do something as simple as
lighting a campfire, many RPG systems still incur a probability on the order of
5-10% of failure, or even disastrous fumble. My feeling is that the
probability here should be zero; established procedures that are well within
the bounds of what can be done should always work unless there's something
specific preventing them.
This may be because my mindset is fundamentally a technological one. Still, I
think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side here; in
the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by sheer
bad luck. I think some people regard unreliability as making it more genuinely
magical, though I've never really been able to understand why.
The second issue is communication.
I'm generally not willing to attempt to play a trained, professional mage
unless I have a clear understanding of how magic works in the game world,
because otherwise I don't have the knowledge my character would have, and
therefore I don't have the information I need to play him.
For example, if the rules say "A natural roll of 90% or higher causes a
spellcasting attempt to go badly wrong, regardless of other factors", I regard
it as something of a design flaw, but I can work with it. If I'm told nothing
more than "Magic is unreliable, and sometimes goes badly wrong", I can't work
with that, because I have no idea how often it goes wrong, which is something I
need to know in order to make decisions on behalf of my character. This is
probably related to the general issue of requiring specific knowledge of the
rules governing an area of the game world before one can play a character with
expertise in that area; some people need more specific information than other
people do.
(Note that I can play an untrained wild talent without knowing how magic works
in the game world, because neither does my character. Indeed, I've done this
and enjoyed it. This requires a lot of trust in the GM; for me at least, it
tends to require that my character has a decent selection of other skills,
because I can't rely on magic.)
The third issue is the nature of the laws of magic.
In order for me to play even an untrained wild talent mage, and do a good job
of it, there are some restrictions on what the laws governing magic can be,
even if I don't know those laws at the start of the game. Basically, I need
them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially, scientific, even
if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
Mary Kuhner posted an excellent example awhile back of a game she ran in which
the PCs started off as untrained mages, and in which the laws of magic were
based on mystical symbolism. Some of the players coped fine, but one of them
had a very hard time because he couldn't adjust to the required mindset. I'd
have exactly the same problem, and would hesitate to join such a game for that
reason.
Another posted example was one where using magic depended on the whim of the
spirits one was dealing with. Again, I probably wouldn't play a mage in a game
like that; there's nothing terribly mysterious about the required mindset here,
but it's not one I enjoy or am particularly good at.
The fourth issue is suspension of disbelief.
In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some level
it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if they're
different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of the
characters or players know them.
For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that belief
directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the game
without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I do.
(So do my characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.) I suspect
I'm in a small minority here though.
I'd be interested to hear whether other people agree with me that these are the
four issues involved, and how many agree or disagree with me on the particular
cases.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
Aerron
"Stephen B. Mann" <sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
>something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
>eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
>of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
>bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
>certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
>have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
>weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
>eventually the program was debugged.
> Now, of course, the more complex the spell/program, the more likely
>that even after debugging there's going to be small subtle gremlins
>lurking inside. Why do you think big-time mages use all those pentagrams
>and mystical accoutrements? It's to buffer and protect them from the
>possiblity of system crashes!
hey I read those books!!
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Never worry about the bullet with your name on it.
Instead, worry about shrapnel addressed to 'occupant.'"
-Murphy
Mary K. Kuhner
>Agreed, provided that the magic system in question is know to be
>reliable in this fashion. For example, most "real life" magic systems
>just don't have this kind of reliablility even if you are a master
>magician (IMO, opinions differ).
This is a point where our opinions differ. From observing modern
practicioners--mainly Wiccan, some Western Ceremonialist, one
Candomble'--I have the impression that most of them recognize a class of
tasks "Of course I can do that, and it will work."
For example, if I were trying to write down rules to emulate modern
Wicca, it wouldn't be appropriate for a third degree or equivalent
initiate to botch casting a circle, or calling the quarter-spirits,
or calling down the Goddess, under normal circumstances; these are
things people assume they will be able to do. A 5% fumble rule (meaning
the High Priestess botches a ritual or so every year) would feel
very odd.
The Candomble' practicioner I observed seemed completely sure of
his ability to become possessed, and made no allowances in the ritual
structure for failure.
On the other hand, most outward-directed forms of spellcasting do
seem to be thought of as failure-prone, though often the attitude is
"Something is guaranteed to happen, but not necessarily exactly what I
wanted."
Ars Magica has a rule that if someone has been buried by Church rites
they cannot be animated by a necromancer. The priest in this case
is doing something very analogous to a magical ritual, and it's one
that should never fail unless the priest himself is somehow badly
corrupted. At least that's my layman's understanding of how such
things were, and are, seen. Similarly, an excommunication is understood
to work 100% if legitimate, not 95%.
If I can hazard a gross overgeneralization, many magical pratices
have spiritual operations that are expected to work 100%. Far fewer
have operations attempting to affect the external world that are
expected to work 100%, though botches (as opposed to simple failures)
are not always part of the picture.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Torben AEgidius Mogensen
rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
[abbreviated somewhat]
>I've been thinking about the recent discussion concerning the reliability of
>magic, and I've come to the conclusion there are actually four different issues
>involved.
>The first issue is reliability.
>I think if a mage can do something, and it's well within the limits of
>his abilities, then he should be able to do it consistently unless opposed.
This is to some degree the definition of something being well within
the abilities of someone. If magic is unreliable (which it need not
be), the question is what makes it so. This could be due to incomplete
understanding of the laws of magic/nature or it could be that magic by
its very nature is unrepeatable and fickle.
>The second issue is communication.
>For example, if the rules say "A natural roll of 90% or higher causes a
>spellcasting attempt to go badly wrong, regardless of other factors", I regard
>it as something of a design flaw, but I can work with it. If I'm told nothing
>more than "Magic is unreliable, and sometimes goes badly wrong", I can't work
>with that, because I have no idea how often it goes wrong, which is something I
>need to know in order to make decisions on behalf of my character.
I have toyed with an idea where changes caused by magic generates a
kind of magical energy, similar to heat generated by chemical
reactions. This energy is centered on the mage itself and must be
absorbed by him/her to avoid a random magical effect taking place,
which may be harmful to the mage. Since the magical energy is truly
wild and random, there is a chance that the mage will be unsuccessful
in absorbing the energy. The failure rate will decrease with skill in
magic but increase with the total amount of absorbed energy. In the
worst case, the absorbed energy is released and combined with the
unabsorbed energy to form a powerful random effect. Absorbed energy
will dissipate naturally over time.
>The third issue is the nature of the laws of magic.
>In order for me to play even an untrained wild talent mage, and do a good job
>of it, there are some restrictions on what the laws governing magic can be,
>even if I don't know those laws at the start of the game.
Indeed. A thing that has bothered me about AD&D magic is that the
effects seem rather arbitrary. One could, however, argue that the laws
are simply so weird that most magicians are reduced to repeating
learned spells, and research into new spells is simply trying out new
formulas at random, hoping something interesting will happen.
>The fourth issue is suspension of disbelief.
>In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some level
>it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if they're
>different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of the
>characters or players know them.
I can agree to there being laws, but they need not be impartial,
rational or scientific. I can, for example, accept games where some
people are inherently luckier than others.
Torben Mogensen (tor...@diku.dk)
Andrius Tamulis
In article <5idmee$3...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <334938...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>reliable in this fashion. For example, most "real life" magic systems
>>just don't have this kind of reliablility even if you are a master
>>magician (IMO, opinions differ).
>
>practicioners--mainly Wiccan, some Western Ceremonialist, one
>Candomble'--I have the impression that most of them recognize a class of
>tasks "Of course I can do that, and it will work."
Mark exactly addresses this point: you have observed _modern_
practitioners, ones that have grown up in a post-Renaissance world where
science rules and all things can be explained. I realize these
practitioners have embraced a more ancient mindset, but I don't believe
they can completely divorce themselves from a modern world-view. I
believe, however, that "ancient" practitioners had more of a "it may
work, it may not" attitude: if you did the rain dance, or the healing
magic, or the harvest blessing, and it worked, then good; if it did not
work, then something went wrong: the gods were angry, were punishing
someone, were fighting battles of their own and could not be bothered,
etc.
On the other hand, we're not talking about reality here, we're talking
role-playing. If the character you wish to role-play is a mage, and you
want him to light a fire in the hearth with a 100% chance of success,
then you should be able to do so. You gotta hammer these things out with
the referee.
Andrius Tamulis
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <5ic1mt$m...@web3.tcd.ie>, rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
|>
|> I've been thinking about the recent discussion concerning the reliability of
|> magic, and I've come to the conclusion there are actually four different issues
|> involved. I'm curious as to what people think of my analysis. (I've taken the
|> liberty of crossposting to .advocacy, and of renaming the thread to something
|> on-topic.)
|>
|> The first issue is reliability.
[snip]
|> This may be because my mindset is fundamentally a technological one. Still, I
|> think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side here; in
|> the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
|> dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by sheer
|> bad luck. I think some people regard unreliability as making it more genuinely
|> magical, though I've never really been able to understand why.
I think you are basically right, in that in most genres, magic is
intended as a substitute for high technology. A well-designed magic
system should reflect that, by having similar properties (in terms of
reliabilty, predictability, and so on).
But there are exceptions. For example, a staple of Renaissance fantasy
novels is the charlatan with real power. Magic is essentially pretty
flaky, and most mages will use stage magic to cover the failure of real
magic. They wouldn't bother if magic were reliable and obvious, so in
order to support the genre, you'd need an unpredictable failure rule of
some kind.
[#2: communication is good]
Yep, lots of communication is good. :)
|> The third issue is the nature of the laws of magic.
|>
|> In order for me to play even an untrained wild talent mage, and do a good job
|> of it, there are some restrictions on what the laws governing magic can be,
|> even if I don't know those laws at the start of the game. Basically, I need
|> them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially, scientific, even
|> if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
This seems like a subcase of your more general requirement below that
the world function fairly scientifically, so I'll ask my questions there.
|> Another posted example was one where using magic depended on the whim of the
|> spirits one was dealing with. Again, I probably wouldn't play a mage in a game
|> like that; there's nothing terribly mysterious about the required mindset here,
|> but it's not one I enjoy or am particularly good at.
<nod> Sea Wasp called this "magic is politics," and that's a pretty
good description. I was trying to set up a magic system with a different
governing metaphor than "magic is technology."
|> The fourth issue is suspension of disbelief.
|>
|> In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some level
|> it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if they're
|> different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of the
|> characters or players know them.
I don't feel that way, and I'd like to know why you do. That way, I'll
be better able to deal with players who feel the way you do. I'm not even
sure what questions I should be asking, so I'll probably be fumbling
around for a while.
|> For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that belief
|> directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
|> genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
|> that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the game
|> without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I do.
|> (So do my characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.) I suspect
|> I'm in a small minority here though.
Could you please explain why? I'm interested in hearing how you feel. (I
expect this is going to wander into that player/character expectations
thing, but I'm not sure how.)
Neel
Psychohist
Russell Wallace posts, in part:
I think some people regard unreliability as making it more
genuinely magical, though I've never really been able to
understand why.
Substitute the word 'mystical' for 'magical', and perhaps it will make
more sense.
I like to have both mundane, reliable magic - freezing water for ice cream
in Laratoa - as well as more mystical, and less well defined, magic - the
circle of stones seems to move about in the south hills, and camping
within it can cause one to be transported, apparently at random, to other
places and times.
For example, if the rules say "A natural roll of 90% or
higher causes a spellcasting attempt to go badly wrong,
regardless of other factors", I regard it as something
of a design flaw, but I can work with it. If I'm told
nothing more than "Magic is unreliable, and sometimes
goes badly wrong", I can't work with that, because I have
no idea how often it goes wrong, which is something I
need to know in order to make decisions on behalf of my
character.
As a gamesmaster, I generally have well defined rules on all but the most
mystical forms of magic, but these rules are not generally public: Some
of the rules are only told to players after they have a character who has
the appropriate level of knowledge. This would seem satisfactory to you,
as long as you need to know the rules only to simulate character
knowledge, and not just to assure the player that they really exist.
In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the
view that at some level it's governed by impartial,
rational, scientific laws....
... the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is
that belief directly determines reality - in other words,
5,000 years ago the Earth genuinely was flat. Now, I
haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly
possible to play the game without accepting the official
metaphysics as being true, which is what I do. (So do my
characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.)
I suspect I'm in a small minority here though.
I could go with those metaphysics as long as the gamesmaster was good
enough to consistently determine its implications. For me, suspension of
disbelief is, at least at this metaphysical level, more of an issue of
consistency than of matching player world expectations of rationality. I
do question whether there are any gamesmasters that are good enough to
maintain a sufficiently high level of consistency for me, given such an
extreme variation from the world in which the players have the most
experience.
An example that I think could be run by many competent gamesmasters is a
world in which many events are determined by the whims of somewhat
childish anthropomorphic gods - where Poseidon really does directly decide
whether your ship will run into storms, and in which the appropriate
sacrifices really do have a chance of propitiating him.
Warren J. Dew
russell wallace
>Russell Wallace posts, in part:
> I think some people regard unreliability as making it more
> genuinely magical, though I've never really been able to
> understand why.
>Substitute the word 'mystical' for 'magical', and perhaps it will make
>more sense.
>I like to have both mundane, reliable magic - freezing water for ice cream
>in Laratoa - as well as more mystical, and less well defined, magic - the
>circle of stones seems to move about in the south hills, and camping
>within it can cause one to be transported, apparently at random, to other
>places and times.
This makes perfect sense, and fits the feel you're trying to achieve in
both cases.
> For example, if the rules say "A natural roll of 90% or
> higher causes a spellcasting attempt to go badly wrong,
> regardless of other factors", I regard it as something
> of a design flaw, but I can work with it. If I'm told
> nothing more than "Magic is unreliable, and sometimes
> goes badly wrong", I can't work with that, because I have
> no idea how often it goes wrong, which is something I
> need to know in order to make decisions on behalf of my
> character.
>As a gamesmaster, I generally have well defined rules on all but the most
>mystical forms of magic, but these rules are not generally public: Some
>of the rules are only told to players after they have a character who has
>the appropriate level of knowledge. This would seem satisfactory to you,
>as long as you need to know the rules only to simulate character
>knowledge, and not just to assure the player that they really exist.
Yes, provided I trust that the GM is using some consistent, impartial
rules, I don't need to be told any more of what those rules are than I
need to know to simulate character knowledge.
> In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the
> view that at some level it's governed by impartial,
> rational, scientific laws....
> ... the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is
> that belief directly determines reality - in other words,
> 5,000 years ago the Earth genuinely was flat. Now, I
> haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
> that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly
> possible to play the game without accepting the official
> metaphysics as being true, which is what I do. (So do my
> characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.)
> I suspect I'm in a small minority here though.
>I could go with those metaphysics as long as the gamesmaster was good
>enough to consistently determine its implications. For me, suspension of
>disbelief is, at least at this metaphysical level, more of an issue of
>consistency than of matching player world expectations of rationality. I
>do question whether there are any gamesmasters that are good enough to
>maintain a sufficiently high level of consistency for me, given such an
>extreme variation from the world in which the players have the most
>experience.
For me, that still at least to a considerable extent does still boil
down to consistency, though. For example, IMO such a world logically
*could not* be consistent, since it would be wildly unstable and quickly
destroyed by positive feedback effects, and I therefore can't maintain
SOD in it.
>An example that I think could be run by many competent gamesmasters is a
>world in which many events are determined by the whims of somewhat
>childish anthropomorphic gods - where Poseidon really does directly decide
>whether your ship will run into storms, and in which the appropriate
>sacrifices really do have a chance of propitiating him.
This world I could maintain SOD in, on the assumption that there are
some consistent, impartial laws underlying it all; it's just that within
those laws the gods happen to have a lot more power than humans have.
(It'd still fall foul of #3 for me in that while the mindset of 'magic
is propitiating the whims of powerful beings' isn't particularly
mysterious, it's one for which I have neither liking nor aptitude.)
russell wallace
>I think you are basically right, in that in most genres, magic is
>intended as a substitute for high technology. A well-designed magic
>system should reflect that, by having similar properties (in terms of
>reliabilty, predictability, and so on).
>But there are exceptions. For example, a staple of Renaissance fantasy
>novels is the charlatan with real power. Magic is essentially pretty
>flaky, and most mages will use stage magic to cover the failure of real
>magic. They wouldn't bother if magic were reliable and obvious, so in
>order to support the genre, you'd need an unpredictable failure rule of
>some kind.
True, there'll be some genres where unpredictable failure does fit
better.
>|> Another posted example was one where using magic depended on the whim of the
>|> spirits one was dealing with. Again, I probably wouldn't play a mage in a game
>|> like that; there's nothing terribly mysterious about the required mindset here,
>|> but it's not one I enjoy or am particularly good at.
><nod> Sea Wasp called this "magic is politics," and that's a pretty
>good description. I was trying to set up a magic system with a different
>governing metaphor than "magic is technology."
*nod*
>|> The fourth issue is suspension of disbelief.
>|>
>|> In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some level
>|> it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if they're
>|> different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of the
>|> characters or players know them.
>I don't feel that way, and I'd like to know why you do. That way, I'll
>be better able to deal with players who feel the way you do. I'm not even
>sure what questions I should be asking, so I'll probably be fumbling
>around for a while.
>
>|> For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that belief
>|> directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
>|> genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
>|> that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the game
>|> without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I do.
>|> (So do my characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.) I suspect
>|> I'm in a small minority here though.
>
>Could you please explain why? I'm interested in hearing how you feel. (I
>expect this is going to wander into that player/character expectations
>thing, but I'm not sure how.)
Player/character expectations thing?
I suspect it may come down to irreducible philosophical outlook, but I'll
try to explain.
In my view, any world whatsoever must at a minimum be logically
self-consistent not only in order to exist, but in order to be
coherently believed, modelled or discussed. Someone who claims FTL
travel might really be possible disagrees with me about the way our
world happens to be, but a priori he might be right as well as I.
Someone who claims 2+2 might really equal 5 or pi might really start
recurring at some number of decimal places doesn't have a substantive
disagreement, he has an incoherent belief structure.
A "belief directly determines reality" world like that mentioned above
isn't logically consistent, for a number of reasons. (For one thing, if
the world came about because we believe in it, where did we come from?
The normal answer, evolution, obviously can't apply. For another, such
a world would be wildly unstable and quickly destroyed by positive
feedback effects. These are related to properties of complex systems in
general, not specific to the case in point.)
Therefore, I can't suspend disbelief in a world like that without
adopting a belief structure I know to be not just wrong but incoherent,
which is something I'm simply not capable of doing.
Does this clarify it?
Warren Grant
On 8 Apr 1997 14:58:22 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <334938...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>>Agreed, provided that the magic system in question is know to be
>>reliable in this fashion. For example, most "real life" magic systems
>>just don't have this kind of reliablility even if you are a master
>>magician (IMO, opinions differ).
>
>This is a point where our opinions differ. From observing modern
>practicioners--mainly Wiccan, some Western Ceremonialist, one
>Candomble'--I have the impression that most of them recognize a class of
>tasks "Of course I can do that, and it will work."
Don't forget that an attitude of absolute assurance of success (will)
is one of the corners of the Witche's pyramid. You have to alter your
consciousness to the point that you are absolutely convinced that what
you are doing will work.
>For example, if I were trying to write down rules to emulate modern
>Wicca, it wouldn't be appropriate for a third degree or equivalent
>initiate to botch casting a circle, or calling the quarter-spirits,
>or calling down the Goddess, under normal circumstances; these are
>things people assume they will be able to do. A 5% fumble rule (meaning
>the High Priestess botches a ritual or so every year) would feel
>very odd.
I think a more likely scenario would be that the strength of the
actions they performed would vary, not that they would fail. I have
been in strong circles, and also in very weak disorganized ones, both
from (presumably) competent people. I do agree that generally they
would succeed at these actions, which are (in RPG terms) not opposed
actions or subject to resistance of any kind.
>The Candomble' practicioner I observed seemed completely sure of
>his ability to become possessed, and made no allowances in the ritual
>structure for failure.
Will again.
>On the other hand, most outward-directed forms of spellcasting do
>seem to be thought of as failure-prone, though often the attitude is
>"Something is guaranteed to happen, but not necessarily exactly what I
>wanted."
In RPG terms and example of a ritual where there are factors outside
of the practioners control, and where resistance might be encountered.
Spells are generally distinct from ritual in the Western Magical
tradition, be it Wicca or Golden Dawn...
>Ars Magica has a rule that if someone has been buried by Church rites
>they cannot be animated by a necromancer. The priest in this case
>is doing something very analogous to a magical ritual, and it's one
>that should never fail unless the priest himself is somehow badly
>corrupted. At least that's my layman's understanding of how such
>things were, and are, seen. Similarly, an excommunication is understood
>to work 100% if legitimate, not 95%.
Having never played AM, I am happy to hear this. I have heard 99% good
things about it. This is neat. The priest IS doing a magical ritual,
except that the power comes from his deity, not himself. The rituals
though will have much in common usually. Similar elements and
concepts. IMHO, that is. No offense intended.
>If I can hazard a gross overgeneralization, many magical pratices
>have spiritual operations that are expected to work 100%. Far fewer
>have operations attempting to affect the external world that are
>expected to work 100%, though botches (as opposed to simple failures)
>are not always part of the picture.
Good, simple summary. Entirely in keeping with my thoughts on the
matter. Although, in humility I would lower the percentage somewhat
depending on the level of traning the person has and the level of
difficulty of the operation. I would not expect a novice to send a
fetch for instance.
Warren Grant
wgr...@imag.net
Gordon Sellar
ANother interesting point to consider5 is the idea of what "magic" is in
your game world... is it some kind of symbol or merely a genre convention?
If it is a genre convention, fine, bu if it is a symbol of something, then
what? Answering this question will help determine a lot about magic in
your game-world.
FOr example, I ran a 'fantasy' campaign where the characters had no
experience of magic. it was mainly unreliable, and for a large part based
on trust with the 'spirits' that one character met in a vision. sometimes
the spirits seemed trustworthy, sometimes they seemed despicable. And yet,
the characters had sometimes to deal with magic out of necessity or
desperation. There were definite laws of magic at work, but the characters
didn't know them., and the spirits themselves were prone to using the
relaible laws to unpredictable effects (unpredictable for the characters,
not the spirits).
So, in this setting, the magic operated on definite laws. It was
unpredictable because of the trust given to it and the spirits, and then
magic in the world grew to be a symbol of trusting outsiders and
supernatural beings. One of the players grew to hate magic, another wanted
to learn all the rules (which he decided must exist) and then forget all
about the spirits.
I have also had settings where mah=gic is very unrelaible and transitory,
more like tricks and illusions, and magic takes on another kind of
symbology here. Finally, there is the case where magic is reliable and
what implications doe s this carry? Can magic be exhausted? Is it
analogous to our use of science? Etc. etc.
I think this is one of the most interesting possibilities for strong
symbology in fantasy role playing and wonder what others think...
--
I think I am, I think I am ....
- Descartes
russell wallace
>Well, these seem to be mainly personal preference issues, but you
>asked...
Oh, absolutely - so are most of the topics discussed here. But I'm
interested in people's reasons for their preferences.
>> This may be because my mindset is fundamentally a technological one. Still, I
>> think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side here; in
>> the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
>> dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by sheer
>> bad luck. I think some people regard unreliability as making it more genuinely
>> magical, though I've never really been able to understand why.
>I think the way most systems handle magic is a fundamentally
>technological one. For magic to seem "magical" it cannot have a
>"technological" or "scientific" feel.
Okay, but what do you regard as the essence of a magical rather than
scientific feel? What would a magic system have to have to provide this
feel for you?
>> For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that belief
>> directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
>> genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a world like
>> that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the game
>> without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I do.
>> (So do my characters, if their mindset is a modern, scientific one.) I suspect
>> I'm in a small minority here though.
>I don't know if it's an issue, since I have no trouble accomodating
>alternative mindsets, even though my normal, real-life one is highly
>rational and scientific. I think it's just a matter of practice.
I've no problem believing it's not an issue for you, but I don't think
it's just a matter of practice. I'm pretty sure no amount of practice
would enable me to find something like a "belief directly determines
reality" world believable.
Mark Apolinski
russell wallace wrote:
>
> In <334938...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >> think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side here; in
> >> the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
> >> dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by sheer
> >> bad luck. I think some people regard unreliability as making it more genuinely
> >> magical, though I've never really been able to understand why.
>
> >I think the way most systems handle magic is a fundamentally
> >technological one. For magic to seem "magical" it cannot have a
> >"technological" or "scientific" feel.
>
> scientific feel? What would a magic system have to have to provide this
> feel for you?
Despite Mary Kuhner's opinions, I don't really see magic as "reliable" the same way
that technology is. I don't understand how someone can say that a particular rite to
call spirits can be virtually without the chance for failure. If this is so, how come
we don't see spirits and magical spells happening all the time?
I suppose one could argue that the results of such magic always occur but not in a
hard and fast and measurable way that I might be assuming from my admittedly
scientific viewpoint. Perhaps a spirit *is* invoked, but that doesn't mean a spectral
figure or a deep, sourceless voice.
This basic feel, whether it's inherent unreliability, or simply that the results of
magic are not what one expects, is what I think is essential in creating a magical
"feel". I doubt it's possible to produce such a feel with other than a freeform
system. However, the TORG, Orrorsh sourcebook has an interesting system of "Occult."
On the other hand, in every movie involving magic that I've ever seen (the good ones,
that is) the mage's magic is indeed totally reliable. In these cases, it's the
*wonder* that the audience has; the inability to understand or predict that is what
gives the magic its feel. Perhaps a fully customizable system that would be unique
for each and every practitioner would be the way to go. And an enforced rule in the
sense of "a magician never tells" would help maintain that sense of mystery for even
the player characters.
Perhaps if a magical working is ever explained, it looses its power. And perhaps if a
particular effect gets used too often, it stops being effective. This would produce
constantly varying magical effects that would keep everybody interested.
For what it's worth,
Mark
David K. Spencer
russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote in article
<5ic1mt$m...@web3.tcd.ie>...
:
: The first issue is reliability.
:
: I think if a mage can do something, and it's well within the limits of
: his abilities, then he should be able to do it consistently unless
opposed.
I think you are making some extreme assumptions about the way magic
works in every gaming world. In many gaming worlds (say, Mage: TA, since
you use it as an example later), Magic of some kinds (say, vulgar) is
always dangerous.
: For example, if a Master of Fire magic tries to do something as simple as
: lighting a campfire, many RPG systems still incur a probability on the
order of
: 5-10% of failure, or even disastrous fumble.
RoleMaster is this way. No matter what, you have somewhere in the
neighborhood of 1-2% chance of failing, and after that another 15%
chance or so of getting in some serious trouble from that failure.
Magic is dangerous.
: My feeling is that the
: probability here should be zero; established procedures that are well
within
: the bounds of what can be done should always work unless there's
something
: specific preventing them.
That's science, not magic. Magic, in some worlds, is not designed to run
like science; it's designed to be something mystic, something spiritual,
something powerful, dangerous, and often-times confusing.
: This may be because my mindset is fundamentally a technological one.
I think that's probably it.
: think it's worth noting that authors of fantasy novels are on my side
here; in
: the vast majority of fantasy literature, unless it's something naturally
: dangerous (e.g. summoning a powerful demon), magic never goes wrong by
sheer
: bad luck.
I think you should beware of drawing a parallel between real life bad luck
and "in-game" bad luck. For example, in Mage: The Ascension, we had one
player who had consistent bad luck with botching magical effects. She
came to the conclusion (in-game) that she was bad at magick. And why
not? There's no reason to equate out-of-game bad luck to in-game bad
luck. Perhaps there's a real valid reason for the magic to fail in-game.
Perhaps the character's self-doubt surfaces at a very unfortunate moment.
Perhaps the fabric of reality hiccupped. Whatever the reason, it might not
be merely luck, in-game. I guess this depends a lot on your players and
GM, though. For example, in Mage: TA, the player decided it made perfect
sense for her character to decide she was bad at using magick. In fact,
it led to a very interesting character evolution, as she decided the
reason she was bad at magick was because she was too often in the city,
surrounded by technology--she fled to the wilderness (and retired the
character--but that's another story) in an attempt to get back in touch
with Gaia. On the other hand, the GM might decide "No. Your character
knows she's good at magick, she just feels as though the spirits of luck
were not with her today." And it's up to the player to work that in.
Without excellent GM/Player communication, this sort of thing really
wouldn't work well, though.
: I'm generally not willing to attempt to play a trained, professional mage
: unless I have a clear understanding of how magic works in the game world,
: because otherwise I don't have the knowledge my character would have, and
: therefore I don't have the information I need to play him.
Unless, of course, the trained, professional mage doesn't understand how
magic works in the game world. See Mage: The Ascension. See Arcane
Magic, as used in RoleMaster.
: Basically, I need
: them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially, scientific,
even
: if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
That's really tough. Magic isn't always supposed to be scientific. Take,
for example, religious magic. In RoleMaster, there is a whole realm of
magic which works off the power of the "gods." This is the magic of
Clerics, etc... who are basically working miracles with every spell,
calling on their gods to empower them. It's quite possible that a god
will allow or not allow a spell to work, with little or no way for a
mortal (after all, how can a mortal understand the reasoning of an
immortal god!) to understand why it happened that way...
: Another posted example was one where using magic depended on the whim of
the
: spirits one was dealing with. Again, I probably wouldn't play a mage in
a game
: like that; there's nothing terribly mysterious about the required mindset
here,
: but it's not one I enjoy or am particularly good at.
There's a perfect example. Through fantasy literature, and real history,
there are plenty of examples of people whose magic only works based on the
whims of higher powers, be those higher powers spirits or God or whatever.
I think cutting that out of consideration for use in fantasy RPGing really
hamstrings your ability to capture a lot of incredible stories and moods.
: In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some
level
: it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws,
You must have had trouble with Mage :)
: For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that
belief
: directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
: genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a
world like
: that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the
game
: without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I
do.
Exactly. But of course, by choosing to play characters whose belief is
frozen out of accepting this sort of metaphysics, you're really crippling
them, and your enjoyment of the game. The concept that belief shapes
reality
is not the original province of Mage--it's a philosophical concept which is
really quite fascinating in its own right. The metaphysics of Mage is why
I loved the game so much! Exploring the world through the eyes of people
who
are able to see beyond the curtian of the belief-shaped-reality is an
incredible experience, and well worth the adjustment time of trying to
accept
that sort of world-view yourself...
Interesting post!
-Dave
Jens Hage
Some ideas I had in the area of comapring magic to tech...
1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :) The lack
of time equals failure to account for all circumstances, and we have a
failure.
2) Reality. In RL we know drek loads about engineering, chemistry and so
on. Yet disaters happen anyway (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the
Japanese Breeder whose name I can't recall, etc.). Why? Various things.
Either the design calls for things that can't be met in RL or the
operators screw up, or the operators aren't trained well enough, or you're
pushing the envelope and don't -know- what will happen (see the X-1 and
the speed of sound).
3) How it works. I've always been partial to emotionally based magic, so
that adds an extra dimension of things to play with.
Anyway, just some ideas...
Jens "Risk studier" Hage
Lee Gold
In article <5if9vr$nkl$1...@nntp-2.io.com>, Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> wrote:
>Some ideas I had in the area of comapring magic to tech...
>
>1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
>boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :)
Well, that's what engineers do in my favorite SF stories --
and I've often felt it was a fault in SF RPGs that they didn't
have a Baling Wire & Instant Invention Repair & Invent skill.
Otherwise, how can I have a Richard Seaton?
Irina Rempt
Warren Grant (wgr...@imag.net) wrote:
> On 8 Apr 1997 14:58:22 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
> (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> >Ars Magica has a rule that if someone has been buried by Church rites
> >they cannot be animated by a necromancer. The priest in this case
> >is doing something very analogous to a magical ritual, and it's one
> >that should never fail unless the priest himself is somehow badly
> >corrupted. At least that's my layman's understanding of how such
> >things were, and are, seen. Similarly, an excommunication is understood
> >to work 100% if legitimate, not 95%.
> Having never played AM, I am happy to hear this. I have heard 99% good
> things about it. This is neat. The priest IS doing a magical ritual,
> except that the power comes from his deity, not himself. The rituals
> though will have much in common usually. Similar elements and
> concepts. IMHO, that is. No offense intended.
Being firmly on the Christian side of things I can only say Amen to
that :-) A good priest (that is, a believer to start with, having the
necessary training, strength of will and conviction) does, IME, wield
real power which comes directly from God *and still belongs to God when
the priest is using it*. It is not given, it is only made available for
good use.
Church rituals, therefore, can't usually fail; if baptism, for example,
doesn't seem to "take" something else must be wrong. It's no use (and
usually not even allowed) to try again.
I tend to play all my priestly characters (PC and NPC) a little like
that; either they are corrupted in themselves, and therefore not real
priests, or they are true believers and always keep in mind that they
do not own their power.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XII. "Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Macy
John Mack wrote:
>
> I like to distinguish between high magic, and "rote" or adventuring
> magic.
>
> High magic is the state of enlightenment attained by those who spend
> years of their lives doing nothing else but peering into the bowels of
> the universe. Their power comes from understanding the true nature of
> reality. These people presumably understand the forces they are dealing
> with well enough (a) not to stuff up on the things that they have
> genuinely mastered and (b) not to push their own limits on the stuff
> they haven't.
>
> Most PC users of magic, by contrast, tend to be adventurers, to whom
> magical study comes second to applying that magic in the field. Their
> study will largely consist of formulae: "Move your hands _this_ way, and
> say _these_ words, and _this_ will happen." Although they are using
> tried and true incantations, they are doing so with little or no real
> understanding of the reality underlying their use of spells, including
> the random factors that may be influencing the spell without their
> knowledge. Hence, a random factor (such as a dice roll) seems quite
> appropriate to determine the outcome when spells are cast by rote.
>
Even by that definition, I would expect that "High Magic" would fail
for apparently random reasons at least some of the time--for the same
reason that scientific experiments, also performed by people who spend
years of their lives doing nothing but peering into the bowels of the
Universe and have as much time as they need to design and set up the
experiment, will sometimes fail for reasons that have nothing to do with
experiment design (there's a power outage, a tube comes loose, an animal
escapes, some other experiment causes a fire in the lab, a container
cracks, there was an impurity in one of the chemicals, simple human
error in handling, etc., etc.).
It's just much more likely that the magic user would fail under
pressure, even if he understood what he was doing perfectly. You might
know *exactly* why uttering the magic words "Yog Sotthoth Neblod Zin,
Bibbety-Bobbity-boo!" has a certain effect, but that doesn't mean that
you'd never stumble over the words make a Freudian slip when uttering
them ("Noooo-I mean bibbety-bobbity-BOO, not BOOB! AIEEEE!" "You know,
Sonja, we lose more magic users that way. Maybe you should start
wearing a tunic.").
russell wallace
>Despite Mary Kuhner's opinions, I don't really see magic as "reliable" the same way
>that technology is. I don't understand how someone can say that a particular rite to
>call spirits can be virtually without the chance for failure. If this is so, how come
>we don't see spirits and magical spells happening all the time?
You seem to be referring to real life here. I really don't think this
is applicable, because I hold the opinion that we never see spirits or
magic spells, for the reason that such things cannot exist under the
natural laws that operate in our universe. If we postulate a universe
with laws that do allow magic to work, it seems to me more reasonable to
suppose that it would work consistently.
>On the other hand, in every movie involving magic that I've ever seen (the good ones,
>that is) the mage's magic is indeed totally reliable. In these cases, it's the
>*wonder* that the audience has; the inability to understand or predict that is what
>gives the magic its feel. Perhaps a fully customizable system that would be unique
>for each and every practitioner would be the way to go. And an enforced rule in the
>sense of "a magician never tells" would help maintain that sense of mystery for even
>the player characters.
How about the system in Mage: The Ascension? That allows, in principle,
anything at all to be done, and strongly encourages variation in
effects, while still providing a solid, consistent framework for
adjudication. (I agree with you that the AD&D style approach of having
shopping lists of spells and magic items does reduce the flavor; magic
should be personal and customizable, not mass-produced in identical
units.)
I'm not sure about your last bit, though. You mean a PC should be
forbidden from explaining to other PCs how his magic works? This
strikes me as being excessively contrived, and unnecessary; the other
PCs will end up having seen their friend use magic plenty of times
anyway, but with a customizable magic system, this won't necessarily
tell them anything about what the next NPC mage they run into will do.
russell wallace
>Some ideas I had in the area of comapring magic to tech...
>1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
>boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :) The lack
>of time equals failure to account for all circumstances, and we have a
>failure.
But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
*using* one.
>2) Reality. In RL we know drek loads about engineering, chemistry and so
>on. Yet disaters happen anyway (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the
>Japanese Breeder whose name I can't recall, etc.). Why? Various things.
>Either the design calls for things that can't be met in RL or the
>operators screw up, or the operators aren't trained well enough, or you're
Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
something like 5-10%.
>pushing the envelope and don't -know- what will happen (see the X-1 and
>the speed of sound).
Here I agree. If you're pushing the envelope and you don't know what
will happen (e.g. creating a completely new spell, summoning a powerful
demon), magic should be less than perfectly reliable, just as technology
is.
>3) How it works. I've always been partial to emotionally based magic, so
>that adds an extra dimension of things to play with.
Not sure what you mean here? Emotional state has an effect on people's
ability to perform most tasks, but this effect is generally minor.
russell wallace
>>1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
>>boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :)
>Well, that's what engineers do in my favorite SF stories --
>and I've often felt it was a fault in SF RPGs that they didn't
>have a Baling Wire & Instant Invention Repair & Invent skill.
>Otherwise, how can I have a Richard Seaton?
GURPS B-Movies (can't remember if this was the exact title) apparently
lumped all science/tech skills into a single skill, "Science!"
[sic], which could be used to do pretty much anything you liked,
including that.
Mark Apolinski
russell wallace wrote:
>
> You seem to be referring to real life here. I really don't think this
> is applicable, because I hold the opinion that we never see spirits or
> magic spells, for the reason that such things cannot exist under the
> natural laws that operate in our universe. If we postulate a universe
> with laws that do allow magic to work, it seems to me more reasonable to
> suppose that it would work consistently.
There are those who would disagree with you.
The point is that it is a typically "technological" point of view that
holds that magic doesn't exist in the real world because we don't see it
like we do the effects of science. Well, I put it to you that this isn't
necesarily the case. It *might* be true, but it doesn't *have* to be
true.
With that in mind, the whole idea that "if magic worked it would be just
like science" goes out the window. A hypothetical universe in which
magic does work could just as well be indistinguishable from ours. Magic
could be just as suble and mysterious as it appears to be here.
What I'm trying to do is to clearly separate the concept of real magic
and the concept of the scientific method. Most "technological" magic
systems combine the two with ideas like clearly understood Laws of
Magic, and Magical Research, etc. There's really no difference between a
mage and a scientist in these worlds because the Laws of Magic ARE the
Laws of Physics.
Try imagining a world where magic works, but is not scientifically
analyzed.
> How about the system in Mage: The Ascension? That allows, in principle,
> anything at all to be done, and strongly encourages variation in
> effects, while still providing a solid, consistent framework for
> adjudication. (I agree with you that the AD&D style approach of having
> shopping lists of spells and magic items does reduce the flavor; magic
> should be personal and customizable, not mass-produced in identical
> units.)
Yes, I like Mage. (Don't like the world that it's in, but like the
system.)
> I'm not sure about your last bit, though. You mean a PC should be
> forbidden from explaining to other PCs how his magic works? This
> strikes me as being excessively contrived, and unnecessary; the other
> PCs will end up having seen their friend use magic plenty of times
> anyway, but with a customizable magic system, this won't necessarily
> tell them anything about what the next NPC mage they run into will do.
It was just an idea.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >russell wallace wrote:
> >: Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >: > I think the way most systems handle magic is a fundamentally
> >: > technological one. For magic to seem "magical" it cannot have a
> >: > "technological" or "scientific" feel.
> >: Okay, but what do you regard as the essence of a magical rather than
> >: scientific feel? What would a magic system have to have to provide this
> >: feel for you?
> >
> >the same way that technology is. I don't understand how someone can
> >say that a particular rite to call spirits can be virtually without
> >the chance for failure. If this is so, how come we don't see spirits
> >and magical spells happening all the time?
>
> believe in magic generally ascribe magic as the cause of many things
> which occur in life: this has been true throughout history. If a
> person had a fever, it was because of evil spirits -- if a person
> helped her recover, that person cast magic upon the evil spirits.
>
> This to me is essential to any magic system. For magic to
> feel "magical", it should not be an "add-on" to a scientific worldview.
Yes, that's just what I'm getting at. One doesn't have to have to use
the Scientific Method just because there is reliable magic in the world.
Too many game systems combine the two.
>
> I'm not familiar with Orrorsh's occult system. What is it
> like that makes the magic "magical"?
It's been a long time, but IIRC it is magic by ritual; each ritual is
totally unique; one picks and chooses elements to add to the ritual that
give bonuses or penalties to one's roll. It's very flexible and very
cool.
> What freeform games have had "magical" magic to you? What
> was it like?
A game played under Theatrix in which I used a barely-modified version
of Mage. The only real thing I changed was that I tossed out the idea
that magic happened quickly. If you magically called for rain in the
morning, it might start raining by midday unless conditions were very
favorable (and given Average magic skill).
The original Pendragon was also very "magical".
> I'm not sure I can think of a movie in which the magic really
> felt "magical" to me. Which films would you say had that sense of
> wonder?
>
> (I would note _Dragonslayer_ as a movie with unreliable magic, BTW.)
_Dragonslayer_ felt magical. _Spellbinder_ as well. I thought
_The_Craft_ handled things well without resorting to fireballs and
lightning bolts.
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5igulc$h...@web3.tcd.ie> rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>[somebody wrote:]
>>3) How it works. I've always been partial to emotionally based magic, so
>>that adds an extra dimension of things to play with.
>Not sure what you mean here? Emotional state has an effect on people's
>ability to perform most tasks, but this effect is generally minor.
I can add columns of numbers when upset or depressed, though with
a slightly higher error rate. However, ask me to write a song and
I fail miserably. One might want a magic system where magic was more
like creative work and less like technical work, and then emotional
state would become more critical.
Having the results depend on parameters that are not important in
"mundane" operations is one of the things that can make a magic system
feel magical to me. I can see at least three classes of relationships
that can make magic feel "magical": emotional relationships such as
"This spell will only work if I truly love the target", moral
relationships such as "This spell will only work if my motives for
using it are good", and symbolic relationships such as contagion or
the law of names. These are intuitive enough for many (not all) players
that they are not too hard to implement, though never as easy as
physics.
A worked out example is the Jump drive in _Radiant_, which is understood
to be magic by its users; it depends on the emotional state of the
pilot and crew more than on physical factors such as the condition of
the engines or the distance between stars. The PCs, knowing this, act
accordingly; for example, the "ship's coordinator" or psych officer
gives a slide show before each Jump in which he describes and
illustrates the destination world in such a way that the crew will
know where the ship is going and will want to arrive there. He
also pays a lot of attention to arguments among crew members that might
translate to a botched Jump, and to any possibility that one of the
crew members might not want to go where the ship plans to go. If
a Jump does not go well, the PCs will look at emotional factors ("I
guess I didn't really want to leave yet") before physical ones. This
sometimes leads to "magical thinking" in the perjorative psychological
sense, where the PCs blame things on "thinking the wrong thoughts"
which should really be attributed to mechanical failure.
This is a bit tricky to mechanize if you do not use mechanics for
states of mind. One odd thing I've found is that it works, for me,
*much* better in a system with difficulty numbers (Shadowrun,
Storyteller, our homebrew) than in a system with bonuses and penalties.
I have an easier time accepting "The crew seems unsure: this will
be a target-7 Jump rather than target-6" than "The crew seems unsure:
make the Jump at a -1 penalty" even though they are mathematically
the same. I don't know if anyone else shares this prejudice, though.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Graham Wills
russell wallace wrote:
> Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
> on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
> random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
> something like 5-10%.
One of the reasons to go with Rolemaster/MERPS. Non-attack spells fail
only 2% of the time, and the "failure" is, most of the time minor.
Usually it's something like: the spell is delayed a round as you are
distracted.
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization, Bell Labs
gwi...@research.bell-labs.com +1 (630) 979 7338
http://www.bell-labs.com/~gwills Silk for Calde!
John Mack
I like to distinguish between high magic, and "rote" or adventuring
magic.
High magic is the state of enlightenment attained by those who spend
years of their lives doing nothing else but peering into the bowels of
the universe. Their power comes from understanding the true nature of
reality. These people presumably understand the forces they are dealing
with well enough (a) not to stuff up on the things that they have
genuinely mastered and (b) not to push their own limits on the stuff
they haven't.
Most PC users of magic, by contrast, tend to be adventurers, to whom
magical study comes second to applying that magic in the field. Their
study will largely consist of formulae: "Move your hands _this_ way, and
say _these_ words, and _this_ will happen." Although they are using
tried and true incantations, they are doing so with little or no real
understanding of the reality underlying their use of spells, including
the random factors that may be influencing the spell without their
knowledge. Hence, a random factor (such as a dice roll) seems quite
appropriate to determine the outcome when spells are cast by rote.
While I can conceive of some people managing to play PCs who genuinely
deal in high magic, and hence should rarely fail at what they do, high
magic remains the exception. Even Ars Magica, which allows players to
play true wizards, also recommends having other characters to play -
adventurers who do the interesting stuff while the mages are stuck in
their labs for literally years at a time.
It is partly true to say that the reliability of magic depends on your
style of play; high magic requires a very specific kind of play, which
most players wouldn't have the patience for. When running an adventure
game, I would always opt for adventuring magic.
Marc PERNET
Graham Wills wrote:
>
> russell wallace wrote:
>
> > Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
> > on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
> > random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
> > something like 5-10%.
>
> One of the reasons to go with Rolemaster/MERPS. Non-attack spells fail
> only 2% of the time, and the "failure" is, most of the time minor.
> Usually it's something like: the spell is delayed a round as you are
> distracted.
>
with any other skill. Whatever the skill you use, there is a chance of
failure. This is also true in real life... just try to remember each of
your fumbles in one normal day : of course, in most case, there are no
bad consequences, but imagine it happens in a stress situation...
I think the best way to handle the mechanics of magic is to make them as
close as possible to the mechanics of other skills. Thus, PROVIDED THAT
YOU HAVE BEEN PROPERLY TRAINED IN MAGIC, it will work in most cases, as
with any other skill... That does not mean of course that any character
will understand magic, but the players will, and there are so many other
ways to keep the aura of mystery...
Galdrin Dwarf
John H Kim
Another reply on magic reliability. As before, I don't think
that reliability has much to do with a "magical" feel. Personally
I have achieved much more of a magical feel in my games by incorporating
non-scientific belief into the magic.
As an example of reliable magic: One PC in my Oneiros game
was a mystic who was trying to turn himself into a dragon by
self-contemplation. There was a creation myth involving dragons
which he was following. Over the course of the game he would gain
more draconic abilities, but they were linked to draconic traits.
Thus, after a point he could breath fire: but he could only do so
if he was in a rage at the target. Later, he could exert enormous
strength, but it was tied to greed -- whatever was gained by that
strength he was obliged to keep.
I guess this was "unreliable" in the sense that he couldn't
always do it (since it effected and depended on his emotions), but
there wasn't random effects or failure rolls.
Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>russell wallace wrote:
>: Mark Apolinski <Mark.Ap...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>: > I think the way most systems handle magic is a fundamentally
>: > technological one. For magic to seem "magical" it cannot have a
>: > "technological" or "scientific" feel.
>:
>: Okay, but what do you regard as the essence of a magical rather than
>: scientific feel? What would a magic system have to have to provide this
>: feel for you?
>
>Despite Mary Kuhner's opinions, I don't really see magic as "reliable"
>the same way that technology is. I don't understand how someone can
>say that a particular rite to call spirits can be virtually without
>the chance for failure. If this is so, how come we don't see spirits
>and magical spells happening all the time?
Eh?? To those who believe in magic, we *do*. Those who
believe in magic generally ascribe magic as the cause of many things
which occur in life: this has been true throughout history. If a
person had a fever, it was because of evil spirits -- if a person
helped her recover, that person cast magic upon the evil spirits.
This to me is essential to any magic system. For magic to
feel "magical", it should not be an "add-on" to a scientific worldview.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I suppose one could argue that the results of such magic always occur
>but not in a hard and fast and measurable way that I might be assuming
>from my admittedly scientific viewpoint. Perhaps a spirit *is* invoked,
>but that doesn't mean a spectral figure or a deep, sourceless voice.
>
>This basic feel, whether it's inherent unreliability, or simply that
>the results of magic are not what one expects, is what I think is
>essential in creating a magical "feel". I doubt it's possible to
>produce such a feel with other than a freeform system. However, the
>TORG, Orrorsh sourcebook has an interesting system of "Occult."
I'm not familiar with Orrorsh's occult system. What is it
like that makes the magic "magical"?
What freeform games have had "magical" magic to you? What
was it like?
I've had a fair bit of success doing mythic-type abilities
in games using the HERO system. I can give more examples if you
like (for now, I'll stick to the dragon-man above which was using
a homebrew).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>On the other hand, in every movie involving magic that I've ever seen
>(the good ones, that is) the mage's magic is indeed totally reliable.
>In these cases, it's the *wonder* that the audience has; the inability
>to understand or predict that is what gives the magic its feel. Perhaps
>a fully customizable system that would be unique for each and every
>practitioner would be the way to go. And an enforced rule in the sense
>of "a magician never tells" would help maintain that sense of mystery
>for even the player characters.
Hmmm. I used a bit of that in my ghost-hunters game in the
HERO system for an NPC: his magic was based on secrets. It wasn't
that successful in that they never really saw his magic in action
(and to tell the truth, it wasn't terribly inspired). Still, I think
the design of the magic system is more important than if it is kept
a secret.
I'm not sure I can think of a movie in which the magic really
felt "magical" to me. Which films would you say had that sense of
wonder?
(I would note _Dragonslayer_ as a movie with unreliable magic, BTW.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
John S. Novak
On 8 Apr 1997 14:58:22 GMT, Mary K. Kuhner
<mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>If I can hazard a gross overgeneralization, many magical pratices
>have spiritual operations that are expected to work 100%. Far fewer
>have operations attempting to affect the external world that are
>expected to work 100%, though botches (as opposed to simple failures)
>are not always part of the picture.
The cynical, materialistic engineering type inside me insists that I
offer the following conjecture:
Internal effects of magic are assumed to happen 100% of the time
because they are inherently unverifiable and because the human
capacity for self-deception is nearly limitless. External effects of
magic are assumed to have some significant failure rate because
without that assumption, people would realize that they just don't
work.
And that's one difference between many fantasy worlds, and the real
world. In said fantasy worlds, magic is often assumed to have a
direct, quantifiable effect. A mage _can_ use his magic to light his
pipe. In the real world, this does not work. Anyone who can
demonstrate otherwise to my satisfaction, feel welcome.
So, now, we can talk about gaming fantasy worlds where all the magic
is internal, and play with any rules we want. But when we start
talking about worlds where the magic system is _known_ to produce
quantifiable physical effects, most people are going to want magic to
start obeying laws not greatly dissimilar to technological ones.
(Note, I did _not_ say scientific ones. I will gleefully admit that,
say, the ancients did not know of science. To say they knew nothing
of technology, when their monuments of stone still stand, is foolish.
They knew what they wanted to happen, they used their knowledge of the
world at large to create it, it worked.)
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak
On 9 Apr 1997 20:37:00 GMT, russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
>But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
>then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
>unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
Dead on.
>and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
>*using* one.
Or, speaking as an engineer, to the process of manufacturing one.
In either case, the analogy is between doing the detail design, and
putting the design to use.
>>2) Reality. In RL we know drek loads about engineering, chemistry and so
>>on. Yet disaters happen anyway (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the
>>Japanese Breeder whose name I can't recall, etc.). Why? Various things.
>>Either the design calls for things that can't be met in RL or the
>>operators screw up, or the operators aren't trained well enough, or you're
>Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
>on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
>random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
>something like 5-10%.
So does complexity.
Consider that the great disasters of engineering are just that--
_great_ disasters involving systems which are vastly complex, beyond
the knowledge of any one given individual.
Looking at a nuclear reactor and seeing it fail is an understandable
thing. Likewise, if a mage is trying to summon the Prince of Evil
himself, when all he's really qualified to do is call and bind a small
midge, he's likely to screw up.
If he tries to light a pipe and manages to blow up a small hill, one
wonders why anyone bothers studying the arts at all. At that point,
the middle finger on the icy hand of Darwin is going to take a terrible
toll...
Jens Hage
In rec.games.frp.advocacy russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
> In <5if9vr$nkl$1...@nntp-2.io.com> Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> writes:
> >Some ideas I had in the area of comapring magic to tech...
> >1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
> >boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :) The lack
> >of time equals failure to account for all circumstances, and we have a
> >failure.
> But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
> then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
> unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
> and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
> *using* one.
Not so. That's assuming that the spell never changes, which is not the
case in some magic systems. It is -one- way of doing it, but not the only.
I can think of at least one magic system where each spell is on the fly.
Here it -is- much more a case of knowing the basic concepts aand
stringing them together as fast as possible.
In your case, will the spell ever "wear out"? Are ther ever situations
where the spell will function suboptimally? (Taking a passenger car
off-road)
Technological artifacts wear out; programs crash. Spells could be the same
way ("Fatal Error"! No shit! I need that fireball!)
> >2) Reality. In RL we know drek loads about engineering, chemistry and so
> >on. Yet disaters happen anyway (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the
> >Japanese Breeder whose name I can't recall, etc.). Why? Various things.
> >Either the design calls for things that can't be met in RL or the
> >operators screw up, or the operators aren't trained well enough, or you're
> Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
> on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
> random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
> something like 5-10%.
Maybe, and I'm not denying that, but magic is also used in far more... um,
diverse situations than you may have trained in. What's the crash rate on
the F-14 frex? (Dunno off the top of my head; I seem to recall something
awful like 1 in 6.)
> >pushing the envelope and don't -know- what will happen (see the X-1 and
> >the speed of sound).
> Here I agree. If you're pushing the envelope and you don't know what
> will happen (e.g. creating a completely new spell, summoning a powerful
> demon), magic should be less than perfectly reliable, just as technology
> is.
Which, depending on how you define magic, may be de rigeur for a mage.
> >3) How it works. I've always been partial to emotionally based magic, so
> >that adds an extra dimension of things to play with.
> Not sure what you mean here? Emotional state has an effect on people's
> ability to perform most tasks, but this effect is generally minor.
Some systems, more loose, make emotional state an important component of a
spell. Anger makes a certain spell easier, so on...
Jens "Just bipping around" Hage
Stephen B. Mann
I'm going to weigh in on the "Why, yes, of course" side of this.
Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
Being that magic is chaotic and mysterious, he doesn't succeed.
However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
Stereotypical Mage's spell?
I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
eventually the program was debugged.
Now, of course, the more complex the spell/program, the more likely
that even after debugging there's going to be small subtle gremlins
lurking inside. Why do you think big-time mages use all those pentagrams
and mystical accoutrements? It's to buffer and protect them from the
possiblity of system crashes! I say this tongue-in-cheek since I had
Netscape crash several times within an hour yesterday whilst surfing on
one of the college's Win95 machines.
Questions, complaints, criticisms?
--
Stephen B. Mann sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu
Webmaster
Center on English Learning & Achievement http://www.albany.edu/cela
Warren Grant
On Wed, 9 Apr 1997 05:53:45 GMT, ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt)
wrote:
>Being firmly on the Christian side of things I can only say Amen to
>that :-) A good priest (that is, a believer to start with, having the
>necessary training, strength of will and conviction) does, IME, wield
>real power which comes directly from God *and still belongs to God when
>the priest is using it*. It is not given, it is only made available for
>good use.
This is the way I have always viewed clerical magic (I use the term
Miracles in my RPG as have others). The power comes from divine
sources and is subject to divine control, the priest (or priestess) is
merely a willing conduit to that force. They have some control over
its use, but little other than that.
>
>Church rituals, therefore, can't usually fail; if baptism, for example,
>doesn't seem to "take" something else must be wrong. It's no use (and
>usually not even allowed) to try again.
From an RPG perspective, the only reason I would think that a miracle
would fail would be that divinity has decided that they don't want
that to happen right now. No power, no miracle. Thus the value of
Prayer to commune with your diety and seek their guidance.
In the RPG I am struggling to complete, Faith can also cause miracles
without the direct power of diety. Faith can move mountains and all.
Failure is of course a clear sign that deity has overridden your
attempt, and it is not acceptable to divine will.
My system also uses a rough (GM determined) guide to how well the
player of a cleric is actually living up to their religious
obligations. This affects their chance of scoring a success.
>I tend to play all my priestly characters (PC and NPC) a little like
>that; either they are corrupted in themselves, and therefore not real
>priests, or they are true believers and always keep in mind that they
>do not own their power.
I have always enjoyed playing either the rabid fanatic, or the down
and out priest (or priestess since I have played both) who is
rediscovering their faith anew. But then I have played many variations
on the theme with great joy. I have probably played more clerics than
any other type of character, if I think about it.
Warren Grant
wgr...@imag.net
red
> >then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
> >unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer
> >program,
>
>
> >and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
> >*using* one.
>
>
> In either case, the analogy is between doing the detail design, and
> putting the design to use.
>
This prompted a vision of ivy-clad eldritch towers in which grizzled magi
toil for centuries constructing the necessary "components" in the Astral
plane. Once established (say, a Fireball), pissant cocky young magicians
strut about town roasting muggers while their elders and betters look
down disdainfully from the true work of High Magic.
Any takers?
--
- red http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9256/FORUM.HTM
"And when they come to ethnically cleanse me >
Will you speak out, will you defend me > Pop Will Eat Itself
Freedom of expression doesn't make it alright! >
Trampled underfoot by the rise on the Right." > Ich Bin Ein Auslander
Mary K. Kuhner
"Stephen B. Mann" <sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu> writes:
>Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
>new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
>variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
>this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
> Being that magic is chaotic and mysterious, he doesn't succeed.
>However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
>apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
>that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
>Stereotypical Mage's spell?
Three examples from real life which seem similar, but have never been
successfully nailed down:
How do I get someone to fall in love with me? Lots of praxis, but
no reliable, consistent, repeatable methods.
How do I produce a worthwhile piece of art? Schools teach this, but
no one has been able to come up with repeatable methods that everyone
can use. Sure, you can get workmanlike results, but not really
high-level ones.
How do I breed a really fine animal? Here a *lot* is known about theory
(I do the theory for a living) but a significant amount of
guesswork remains in the application, and one is often surprised.
One might think of spell-casting as being more like these examples than
like "how do I make a better sword?" or "how do I get an explosion when
I need one?" Some problems are intrinsically harder than others, or
less subject to rote experimentation.
It's worth noting that even though none of things things can be done
reliably, people still try to do them, because when they work they're
useful.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
A quick comment on theology here...
Warren Grant <wgr...@imag.net> wrote:
>ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt) wrote:
>>Being firmly on the Christian side of things I can only say Amen to
>>that :-) A good priest (that is, a believer to start with, having the
>>necessary training, strength of will and conviction) does, IME, wield
>>real power which comes directly from God *and still belongs to God when
>>the priest is using it*. It is not given, it is only made available for
>>good use.
Uh, hmmm. While it is interesting and workable, I would
note that I believe this is against Catholic doctrine, at least.
(I'm actually a Presbyterian, but I don't know their exact doctrine
on this).
As I understand it, in Catholicism an invested priest
inherently has the power to wield the Sacraments. It doesn't matter
what his state of faith or motives are. If he does it (baptism,
marriage, last rites, etc.), it is *done* in the eyes of God.
Of course, he may still be damned for his sins -- but the
Sacraments he performs remain sacred.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>
>>Church rituals, therefore, can't usually fail; if baptism, for example,
>>doesn't seem to "take" something else must be wrong. It's no use (and
>>usually not even allowed) to try again.
>
>From an RPG perspective, the only reason I would think that a miracle
>would fail would be that divinity has decided that they don't want
>that to happen right now. No power, no miracle.
Uh, okay. I would note that baptism is not a miracle in
Christianity -- it is a regular sacrament. Technically I think
miracles are the direct hand of God, and they are almost by
definition unpredictable. You are almost never assured of a
miracle happening, no matter how good your cause. Some good
Christians are saved by miracles -- others are martyred and they
are given their reward in the hereafter.
Psychohist
Several people have mentioned that they would prefer that magic not have a
technological or scientific feel - that it be more mystical in nature.
The implication, I believe, is that the players already get enough
technology and science in the player world.
Yet, even more people have noted that magic, in most systems, does seem to
be pretty much technology in disguise.
I'd like to suggest that for many people, including myself, it isn't
really the 'scientific' feel that's objectionable. Rather, it's that, in
the player world, things sufficiently advanced to give the capabilities
one might expect of magic, such as aircraft or telephones, require a huge
industrial base to produce. This in turn implies an industrialized
economy, and a social system in which individual independence is limited -
most people work for a company, and not for themselves, and nearly
everyone pays taxes to a rather remote government.
In an ideal world, I'd like to be able to get the magical effects -
flying, or communication at a distance - without a complex economic and
social infrastructure that I consider rather oppressive. Spells and magic
items, within the grasp of individual craftsmen, would permit a world much
closer to my ideal than do mass produced items requiring huge factories
and world wide commerce.
In this view, the reliability of magic has nothing to do with the inherent
problems of an industrialized, scientific culture. Indeed, the more
reliable the magic, the greater the relative power of the individual.
Warren J. Dew
red
John H Kim wrote:
> I'm not sure I can think of a movie in which the magic really
> felt "magical" to me. Which films would you say had that sense of
> wonder?
How about _Thunderheart_ (I think), a Val Kilmer movie with Amerindian
magic that I found quite good. Also I think _Excalibur_ had some good,
moody dragon magic.
russell wallace
>russell wallace wrote:
>>
>> You seem to be referring to real life here. I really don't think this
>> is applicable, because I hold the opinion that we never see spirits or
>> magic spells, for the reason that such things cannot exist under the
>> natural laws that operate in our universe. If we postulate a universe
>> with laws that do allow magic to work, it seems to me more reasonable to
>> suppose that it would work consistently.
>There are those who would disagree with you.
To be sure.
>The point is that it is a typically "technological" point of view that
>holds that magic doesn't exist in the real world because we don't see it
>like we do the effects of science. Well, I put it to you that this isn't
>necesarily the case. It *might* be true, but it doesn't *have* to be
>true.
Certainly, my views on this originate from my technological mindset...
>With that in mind, the whole idea that "if magic worked it would be just
>like science" goes out the window. A hypothetical universe in which
>magic does work could just as well be indistinguishable from ours. Magic
>could be just as suble and mysterious as it appears to be here.
However, let's say we have a world which is indistinguishable from ours,
except that magic works, and assume we're not talking about secret
societies of mages working outside the public view, but where what mages
do is indistinguisable from what people who believe they can do magic,
do in public in this world.
In such a case, I simply cannot perceive any significant difference
between playing a character who can really do magic, and playing a
character who is of the incorrect opinion that he can, and therefore
cannot perceive any significant sense in which there can be said to be
magic in such a world at all.
>What I'm trying to do is to clearly separate the concept of real magic
>and the concept of the scientific method. Most "technological" magic
>systems combine the two with ideas like clearly understood Laws of
>Magic, and Magical Research, etc. There's really no difference between a
>mage and a scientist in these worlds because the Laws of Magic ARE the
>Laws of Physics.
>Try imagining a world where magic works, but is not scientifically
>analyzed.
I can certainly imagine a world in which magic works, but the scientific
method as we know it is not known. It still seems to me, however, that
magic would be developed in the same way as technology was developed in
pre-modern times: I know that if I do X and Y, Z will happen, even if I
don't know the reason for it.
russell wallace
In <5ih31s$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>In article <5igulc$h...@web3.tcd.ie> rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>>[somebody wrote:]
>>>3) How it works. I've always been partial to emotionally based magic, so
>>>that adds an extra dimension of things to play with.
>>Not sure what you mean here? Emotional state has an effect on people's
>>ability to perform most tasks, but this effect is generally minor.
>I can add columns of numbers when upset or depressed, though with
>a slightly higher error rate. However, ask me to write a song and
>I fail miserably. One might want a magic system where magic was more
>like creative work and less like technical work, and then emotional
>state would become more critical.
Okay, I understand what you're saying there, and I agree that one could
do that. I simply would have a lot of difficulty relating to it; I
would keep thinking things along the lines of "I know my character's
depressed, and not in much shape to do anything creative - but he's cast
fireballs dozens of times before. He should be able to do it in his
sleep by now." I could work with a system in which that was not the
case, but I would have a much easier time suspending disbelief if the
impact of emotional state was greatly reduced for things the character
had done a great many times in the past.
>Having the results depend on parameters that are not important in
>"mundane" operations is one of the things that can make a magic system
>feel magical to me. I can see at least three classes of relationships
>that can make magic feel "magical": emotional relationships such as
>"This spell will only work if I truly love the target", moral
>relationships such as "This spell will only work if my motives for
>using it are good", and symbolic relationships such as contagion or
>the law of names. These are intuitive enough for many (not all) players
>that they are not too hard to implement, though never as easy as
>physics.
*nod* That could work for a lot of people, though for me it would never
be intuitive; it would be something I just ended up following according
to the rules. (Mind you, if there was a definite, written procedure for
adjudicating it, I could learn to do it reliably despite my lack of
intuitive feel for it :))
>A worked out example is the Jump drive in _Radiant_, which is understood
>to be magic by its users; it depends on the emotional state of the
>pilot and crew more than on physical factors such as the condition of
>the engines or the distance between stars. The PCs, knowing this, act
>accordingly; for example, the "ship's coordinator" or psych officer
>gives a slide show before each Jump in which he describes and
>illustrates the destination world in such a way that the crew will
>know where the ship is going and will want to arrive there. He
>also pays a lot of attention to arguments among crew members that might
>translate to a botched Jump, and to any possibility that one of the
>crew members might not want to go where the ship plans to go. If
>a Jump does not go well, the PCs will look at emotional factors ("I
>guess I didn't really want to leave yet") before physical ones. This
>sometimes leads to "magical thinking" in the perjorative psychological
>sense, where the PCs blame things on "thinking the wrong thoughts"
>which should really be attributed to mechanical failure.
Sure, that could work. Though I can't help thinking, "Why doesn't
someone come up with a better design?" Or even, "Failing that, why
don't they just put the crew in cold sleep for the journey?" :)
It's just occurred to me: how do passenger ships in the _Radiant_
universe cope with this problem?
>This is a bit tricky to mechanize if you do not use mechanics for
>states of mind. One odd thing I've found is that it works, for me,
>*much* better in a system with difficulty numbers (Shadowrun,
>Storyteller, our homebrew) than in a system with bonuses and penalties.
>I have an easier time accepting "The crew seems unsure: this will
>be a target-7 Jump rather than target-6" than "The crew seems unsure:
>make the Jump at a -1 penalty" even though they are mathematically
>the same. I don't know if anyone else shares this prejudice, though.
I don't know whether anyone else does; I've always found it far more
intuitive to use one axis rather than two. I just can't see any reason
for an unsure crew resulting in an increase to the target number rather
than a reduction in the character's dice pool.
russell wallace
>(Note, I did _not_ say scientific ones. I will gleefully admit that,
>say, the ancients did not know of science. To say they knew nothing
>of technology, when their monuments of stone still stand, is foolish.
>They knew what they wanted to happen, they used their knowledge of the
>world at large to create it, it worked.)
This is a very good point. It's quite reasonable to postulate a fantasy
world in which wizards are completely ignorant of the scientific method,
but it's also reasonable to postulate that they will still have worked
out reliable procedures by trial and error, just as practitioners of
other crafts did.
russell wallace
>This prompted a vision of ivy-clad eldritch towers in which grizzled magi
>toil for centuries constructing the necessary "components" in the Astral
>plane. Once established (say, a Fireball), pissant cocky young magicians
>strut about town roasting muggers while their elders and betters look
>down disdainfully from the true work of High Magic.
Quite likely. I mean, look at the amount of talent, ingenuity and sheer
effort it took to develop practical air transport, and nowadays people
casually hop on a 747 to go on their summer holidays. (Reader's home
project: think of 57 other examples. )
russell wallace
In <5ihtq8$f2j$1...@nntp-2.io.com> Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> writes:
>In rec.games.frp.advocacy russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
>> But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
>> then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
>> unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
>> and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
>> *using* one.
>Not so. That's assuming that the spell never changes, which is not the
>case in some magic systems. It is -one- way of doing it, but not the only.
>I can think of at least one magic system where each spell is on the fly.
>Here it -is- much more a case of knowing the basic concepts aand
>stringing them together as fast as possible.
Okay, but in that system, why exactly would one create a new spell on
the fly, if one were in a situation where a spell you've already used
would do the job and speed and reliability are of the essence? (E.g. a
barbarian is coming at you with a broadsword?)
>In your case, will the spell ever "wear out"? Are ther ever situations
>where the spell will function suboptimally? (Taking a passenger car
>off-road)
The spell (as opposed to specific instances of it) should no more wear
out than a computer program or an engineering design (as opposed to a
disk drive or a specific machine) will wear out. Function suboptimally?
Of course. If you're in a situation where no preexisting spell will do
the job, that's when you need to put something together on the fly. I
would suggest, however, that that should be the exception rather than
the rule.
>Technological artifacts wear out; programs crash. Spells could be the same
>way ("Fatal Error"! No shit! I need that fireball!)
But safety-critical devices and programs can be, and are, engineered to
have failure chances of less than one in a million.
>> Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
>> on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
>> random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
>> something like 5-10%.
>Maybe, and I'm not denying that, but magic is also used in far more... um,
>diverse situations than you may have trained in. What's the crash rate on
>the F-14 frex? (Dunno off the top of my head; I seem to recall something
>awful like 1 in 6.)
During the aircraft's lifetime, possibly. But not per flight! (I would
have no problem with a magic system which assigned a 1 in 6 probability
to a professional mage screwing up a basic spell at some point during
his whole career.)
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5ijk72$3...@web3.tcd.ie> rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>In <5ih31s$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>A worked out example is the Jump drive in _Radiant_, which is understood
>>to be magic by its users; it depends on the emotional state of the
>>pilot and crew more than on physical factors such as the condition of
>>the engines or the distance between stars.
>Sure, that could work. Though I can't help thinking, "Why doesn't
>someone come up with a better design?" Or even, "Failing that, why
>don't they just put the crew in cold sleep for the journey?" :)
Most ships put all but essential crew (pilot and engineer) in cold sleep
for the journey. Chernoi wants to have people awake when something
goes wrong (she likes to make risky Jumps).
>It's just occurred to me: how do passenger ships in the _Radiant_
>universe cope with this problem?
Cold sleep or drugs. Chernoi charges x10 to carry someone conscious,
but that's the act of a cocky captain; most won't do it at all.
In general, you're looking at magical problems as very analogous to
physics problems: there should be a clean solution, and we'll just
keep looking at the problem till we find it. This has tended to work
in physics and engineering, but it never has worked in pyschology or
sociology, despite the pressing importance of some of the questions.
Given your .sig, I suspect a magic system arranged along psych/soc lines
would really get under your skin, but at least it does plausibly answer
the question "Why can't they make this reliable?"
My real-life beliefs regarding magic involve it being extremely
close to psychology (to the point where some practicioners regard
me as a non-believer) and I therefore don't expect it to behave
reliably or repeatably, any more than I expect, say, a stirring
oration that swayed one crowd to necessarily sway another, or a formula
that produced one great novel to turn out a bunch more.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Brian Dysart
In article <5idloh$l...@vidar.diku.dk>,
Torben AEgidius Mogensen <tor...@diku.dk> wrote:
>I have toyed with an idea where changes caused by magic generates a
>kind of magical energy, similar to heat generated by chemical
>reactions. This energy is centered on the mage itself and must be
>absorbed by him/her to avoid a random magical effect taking place,
>which may be harmful to the mage. Since the magical energy is truly
>wild and random, there is a chance that the mage will be unsuccessful
>in absorbing the energy. The failure rate will decrease with skill in
>magic but increase with the total amount of absorbed energy. In the
>worst case, the absorbed energy is released and combined with the
>unabsorbed energy to form a powerful random effect. Absorbed energy
>will dissipate naturally over time.
Congratualtions, you've just described Paradox in Mage: the Ascension.
As I understand it, in that game Paradox is sort of a reaction the universe
has against being forced to do something it's not supposed to, and if you
build up too much of it, the universe snaps back to normalcy with a
magical hiccup side-effect.
--
Brian Dysart | Ours is not to reason why...
bdy...@rahul.net | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
Ron Levy
In article <5ihbfb$do8$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@inibara.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> As an example of reliable magic: One PC in my Oneiros game
>was a mystic who was trying to turn himself into a dragon by
>self-contemplation. There was a creation myth involving dragons
>which he was following. Over the course of the game he would gain
>more draconic abilities, but they were linked to draconic traits.
>Thus, after a point he could breath fire: but he could only do so
>if he was in a rage at the target. Later, he could exert enormous
>strength, but it was tied to greed -- whatever was gained by that
>strength he was obliged to keep.
Speaking as the PC in question, I only got mad enough to really breathe
fire once; we had this really obnoxious peasant-werewolf locked up
in a cell. Of course, he changed and started to batter his way out.
After all the trouble we went through to put him there WITHOUT just
killing him, here he goes trying to escape. I burnt him repeatedly
to a char through the bars of the small window up top.
> I guess this was "unreliable" in the sense that he couldn't
>always do it (since it effected and depended on his emotions), but
>there wasn't random effects or failure rolls.
There weren't failure rolls, but there WERE success rolls. I would
never fail to breathe fire, but I could certainly fail to harm an
opponent with it. It took me quite some time to put down the werewolf,
in flamethrower terms. Similarily, HOW strong I was was subject to the
caprice of a die roll, though I was always 'strong' when using it.
And this is the way that it should be, of course. Success should never
be guaranteed. But this is another sort of 'failure' that I don't see
being addressed. A 5th level AD&D mage generally doesn't 'fail' to
cast his fireball, but he can roll so badly on the damage that the orcs walk
through laughing.
-Ron Levy
Mark Apolinski
Magic in the Middle Ages *was* an attempt by man to understand his world
and the "laws" of that world. But since the Scientific Method hadn't
been invented yet, man didn't do a very good job. You get results like
Lodestone can make people fall asleep and that "rays" from the stars
cause effects on earth.
Sure, have a world where magic exists and people will naturally try to
understand how it works because man is a rational being who tries to
analyze instinctively. But this instinct to analyze needs to be trained.
For this fantasy world, just don't feel that the inhabitants would
automatically use the Scientific Method to understand their magic. They
will try to understand it, but what if they did so with less refined
techniques, as in the Middle Ages?
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Stephen B. Mann wrote:
>
> I'm going to weigh in on the "Why, yes, of course" side of this.
> new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
> variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
> this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
Why would you assume that he would experiment? Perhaps he would in a
"typical fantasy world" which assumes a scientific, modern mindset. I
don't think it should.
> Being that magic is chaotic and mysterious, he doesn't succeed.
> However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
> apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
> that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
> Stereotypical Mage's spell?
Thousands of years?!
Let's look at Earth. On Earth, we've had civilizations last for long
periods of time, the Romans, the Chinese, yet none of them managed to
invent atomic bombs or spaceships or even discover electricity. You are
operating under and assuming a modern, scientific mindset that doesn't
necessarily exist in a fantasy world.
> I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
> something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
> eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
> of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
> bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
> certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
> have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
> weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
> eventually the program was debugged.
Sure because you grew up expecting that question have answers and that
the universe is a fundamentally understandable place. That is a very
recent development in terms of the entire span of human history. Did a
medieval peasant experiment to find out the best grain for planting or
how to optimize crop yields? No, he did it "the way it's always been
done" because that way guarranteed a certain level of results.
I would expect a medieval mage to think the same way, "Do the spell this
way because this is the way that I was taught."
Mark
russell wallace
>I'd like to suggest that for many people, including myself, it isn't
>really the 'scientific' feel that's objectionable. Rather, it's that, in
>the player world, things sufficiently advanced to give the capabilities
>one might expect of magic, such as aircraft or telephones, require a huge
>industrial base to produce. This in turn implies an industrialized
>economy, and a social system in which individual independence is limited -
>most people work for a company, and not for themselves, and nearly
>everyone pays taxes to a rather remote government.
Something of a tangential point, but people have far more individual
independence nowaways than they did back in the days before industrial
bases and large companies existed.
>In an ideal world, I'd like to be able to get the magical effects -
>flying, or communication at a distance - without a complex economic and
>social infrastructure that I consider rather oppressive. Spells and magic
>items, within the grasp of individual craftsmen, would permit a world much
>closer to my ideal than do mass produced items requiring huge factories
>and world wide commerce.
This could work, provided you had a world in which everyone could do at
least a little magic. My personal feeling is that, human nature being
what it is, this still will not produce the desired effect, certainly
not in the short term. Remember that the original reason for having
large social organizations (nations and empires) was nothing to do with
economic efficiency per se: it was that belonging to one made it less
likely that your neighbour could come along and burn down your village
(and more likely that you could go along and burn down their village
instead).
Warren Grant
>The point is that it is a typically "technological" point of view that
>holds that magic doesn't exist in the real world because we don't see it
>like we do the effects of science. Well, I put it to you that this isn't
>necesarily the case. It *might* be true, but it doesn't *have* to be
>true.
Agreed
>With that in mind, the whole idea that "if magic worked it would be just
>like science" goes out the window. A hypothetical universe in which
>magic does work could just as well be indistinguishable from ours. Magic
>could be just as suble and mysterious as it appears to be here.
If the presence and effects of magic were scientifically provable, we
would treat it scientifically. In a medieval world, science per se
does not exist, the scientific method does not exist (or at least is
not codified) and practioners of magic would not view it from that
perspective. Our problem is that it is an inherent part of our
worldview, and thus is difficult to avoid using.
>What I'm trying to do is to clearly separate the concept of real magic
>and the concept of the scientific method. Most "technological" magic
>systems combine the two with ideas like clearly understood Laws of
>Magic, and Magical Research, etc. There's really no difference between a
>mage and a scientist in these worlds because the Laws of Magic ARE the
>Laws of Physics.
Agreed again. Magic should probably consist of methods of achieving
ends, often conflicting, about which most mages cannot even agree.
Some would show preference for one style, others for another, all
would use similar basic methods, but the actual systems would differ.
For game mechanics though, we need to settle on specific ways of
resolving magic that do not conflict with the idea you are tyring to
convey here.
>Try imagining a world where magic works, but is not scientifically
>analyzed.
As you have pointed out (I think) there are those who maintain that
this is the case for our own real world. And those who dismiss this of
course.
>> I'm not sure about your last bit, though. You mean a PC should be
>> forbidden from explaining to other PCs how his magic works? This
>> strikes me as being excessively contrived, and unnecessary; the other
>> PCs will end up having seen their friend use magic plenty of times
>> anyway, but with a customizable magic system, this won't necessarily
>> tell them anything about what the next NPC mage they run into will do.
I think that a certain amount of secrecy can be used in an RPG. There
are, after all, very few older magical traditions in our own culture
that do not demand an oath of secrecy from any initiate. Often a new
oath is demanded at each level of initiation.
In RPG terms, this might simply mean that a mage is oathbound not to
inform the uninitiated as to the methods used, or other secrets of
their trade, and might want members of a party to turn away while a
spell is cast. Or they might come under heavy criticism from their
peers for performing their magic before non members.
Also just an idea
Warren Grant
Jens Hage
In rec.games.frp.advocacy russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
> In <5ihtq8$f2j$1...@nntp-2.io.com> Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> writes:
> >In rec.games.frp.advocacy russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
> >> But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
> >> then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
> >> unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
> >> and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
> >> *using* one.
> >Not so. That's assuming that the spell never changes, which is not the
> >case in some magic systems. It is -one- way of doing it, but not the only.
> >I can think of at least one magic system where each spell is on the fly.
> >Here it -is- much more a case of knowing the basic concepts aand
> >stringing them together as fast as possible.
> Okay, but in that system, why exactly would one create a new spell on
> the fly, if one were in a situation where a spell you've already used
> would do the job and speed and reliability are of the essence? (E.g. a
> barbarian is coming at you with a broadsword?)
The position you are in, the condition you are in (eg The spell doesn't
work when you are wounded due to mana leakage from wounds) the condition
of ht elocal mana flow, the phase of the moon, indigestion, etc, etc, etc.
All it means is that, due to the form magic takes, local condition are too
important to be able to gloss over with a UberSpell. You have to be there,
be awake and be cognizant of the local situation. In this form.
> >In your case, will the spell ever "wear out"? Are ther ever situations
> >where the spell will function suboptimally? (Taking a passenger car
> >off-road)
> The spell (as opposed to specific instances of it) should no more wear
> out than a computer program or an engineering design (as opposed to a
> disk drive or a specific machine) will wear out. Function suboptimally?
> Of course. If you're in a situation where no preexisting spell will do
> the job, that's when you need to put something together on the fly. I
> would suggest, however, that that should be the exception rather than
> the rule.
In your opinion. I thnk the form of magic I laid out makes more sense to
me, seeing as a lab is not the real world (in a very different way).
> >Technological artifacts wear out; programs crash. Spells could be the same
> >way ("Fatal Error"! No shit! I need that fireball!)
> But safety-critical devices and programs can be, and are, engineered to
> have failure chances of less than one in a million.
How versitile are those systems? How quickly can you convert them into
something else? Because they -can- doesn't mean a) they will be or b) it
will make it any more usable.
> >> Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
> >> on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
> >> random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
> >> something like 5-10%.
> >Maybe, and I'm not denying that, but magic is also used in far more... um,
> >diverse situations than you may have trained in. What's the crash rate on
> >the F-14 frex? (Dunno off the top of my head; I seem to recall something
> >awful like 1 in 6.)
> During the aircraft's lifetime, possibly. But not per flight! (I would
> have no problem with a magic system which assigned a 1 in 6 probability
> to a professional mage screwing up a basic spell at some point during
> his whole career.)
Maybe, but I'm still a fan of the intuitive systems where local conditions
make "rote" spellcasting nearly useless, due to changing local conditions.
Jens "Just call me dangerous" Hage
Thraka
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> Stephen B. Mann wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to weigh in on the "Why, yes, of course" side of this.
> > Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
> > new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
> > variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
> > this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
>
> Why would you assume that he would experiment? Perhaps he would in a
> "typical fantasy world" which assumes a scientific, modern mindset. I
> don't think it should.
This line of reasoning seems common on the unreliable side of the fence,
but it is flawed. It presumes that a mage is of the same mindset as the
rest of the population. It seems to me that in order to be a sorceror,
one would have to be of an inquisitive mindset, or one of two things
would occur: there would be no mages, or everyone would be a mage.
> > Being that magic is chaotic and mysterious, he doesn't succeed.
> > However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
> > apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
> > that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
> > Stereotypical Mage's spell?
>
> Thousands of years?!
>
> Let's look at Earth. On Earth, we've had civilizations last for long
> periods of time, the Romans, the Chinese, yet none of them managed to
> invent atomic bombs or spaceships or even discover electricity. You are
> operating under and assuming a modern, scientific mindset that doesn't
> necessarily exist in a fantasy world.
Such discoveries needed groundwork be laid to facilitate their
emergence, communications being a key technology. The chinese did have
gunpowder, BTW. But you are discussing the creation of radically new
things, not the evolution of things known to exist. In a world where
magic exists, and is known to exist, the simple desire of one king to
conquer another would ensure development of magical theory, as certainly
as it would mettalurgy and shipbuilding. When a force is known to
exist, those in power have always struggled to tame it and use it to
their own ends.
> > I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
> > something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
> > eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
> > of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
> > bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
> > certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
> > have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
> > weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
> > eventually the program was debugged.
>
> Sure because you grew up expecting that question have answers and that
> the universe is a fundamentally understandable place. That is a very
> recent development in terms of the entire span of human history. Did a
> medieval peasant experiment to find out the best grain for planting or
> how to optimize crop yields? No, he did it "the way it's always been
> done" because that way guarranteed a certain level of results.
Again, this presumes a midieval peasant would have been capable of
becoming a mage in the first place. How do you explain Euclid,
Pythagoras, etc? Rational thought is not new, and very little has
changed in terms of how people behave today. We all behave, in some
respects, just as the peasant did. How many people actually understand
how a car works? Yet they use them every day. The fact that a peasant
might be simple minded, or used the technologies he knew about without
question, does not in any way suggest that the powers that were behaved
in the same manner.
> I would expect a medieval mage to think the same way, "Do the spell this
> way because this is the way that I was taught."
No, that is a mideival peasant, who would probably never become a mage.
This has no bearing whatsoever on the behavior or mindset of a mage.
--
Thraka
Clan Xenocide
http://home.earthlink.net/~thraka
To e-mail me, remove the 'spam_frag-' from in front of my address.
Irina Rempt
> Warren Grant <wgr...@imag.net> wrote:
> >ir...@lamarkis.uucp (Irina Rempt) wrote:
> >>A good priest (that is, a believer to start with, having the
> >>necessary training, strength of will and conviction) does, IME, wield
> >>real power which comes directly from God *and still belongs to God when
> >>the priest is using it*. It is not given, it is only made available for
> >>good use.
> Uh, hmmm. While it is interesting and workable, I would
> note that I believe this is against Catholic doctrine, at least.
> (I'm actually a Presbyterian, but I don't know their exact doctrine
> on this).
> As I understand it, in Catholicism an invested priest
> inherently has the power to wield the Sacraments. It doesn't matter
> what his state of faith or motives are. If he does it (baptism,
> marriage, last rites, etc.), it is *done* in the eyes of God.
> Of course, he may still be damned for his sins -- but the
> Sacraments he performs remain sacred.
Erm, yes. I must have been very tired when I wrote that. I didn't mean
that a sacrament can be *invalid* because of shoddiness, uncertain
intentions, or any other human failing; only that a priest *should*
have all the qualities that I mentioned above. The sacrament comes from
God to the recipient and a flawed 'channel' shouldn't, and doesn't,
violate the integrity of what happens.
I don't want to discuss real-world religion (neither my own nor anyone
else's) in depth in this newsgroup; anyone who wants that discussion,
please take it to e-mail (I've already done so with John).
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
IX. "Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus
alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychohist
Mary Kuhner posts, in part:
My real-life beliefs regarding magic involve it being
extremely close to psychology (to the point where some
practicioners regard me as a non-believer) and I
therefore don't expect it to behave reliably or
repeatably ...
This in combination with an earlier post has me wondering just what people
think 'scientifically', 'reliably', 'repeatably', and such terms mean. To
take two of Mary's earlier examples of things science hasn't solved - love
and art - there are individuals who can very reliably get people to fall
in love with them, and there are individuals who can very reliably turn
out good art. What we don't have is a formula that would theoretically
allow anyone to do these things - and, frankly, we didn't have that for
physics and engineering until a few centuries ago.
Let me take an example of something that works often enough for the
scientific establishment to take note of it, but doesn't seem to fit into
the western scientific framework: acupuncture. Do people think
acupuncture has a 'scientific' or 'magical' feel? Why?
Warren
Dennis F. Hefferman
In <5iiud1$o...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
|It's worth noting that even though none of things things can be done
|reliably, people still try to do them, because when they work they're
|useful.
However, very few of them will get you killed if you fail.
If magic is unreliable, it will not be part of society. And
"unreliable" doesn't require huge percentage chances of failure; even a 1% or
2% chance of what passes for a critical miss in most systems will be enough to
keep magic out of the mainstream when you account for hundreds of mages casting
thousands of spells. SJG's people wanted magic to be used that way in Yrth,
and it won't fly at all -- accidental demon summonings would be a daily
occurance.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I don't know why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't you
learned; if it's not happening to me it's not important?" -- Murphy Brown
Mark Apolinski
Thraka wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> >
> > Why would you assume that he would experiment? Perhaps he would in a
> > "typical fantasy world" which assumes a scientific, modern mindset. I
> > don't think it should.
>
> This line of reasoning seems common on the unreliable side of the fence,
> but it is flawed. It presumes that a mage is of the same mindset as the
> rest of the population. It seems to me that in order to be a sorceror,
> one would have to be of an inquisitive mindset, or one of two things
> would occur: there would be no mages, or everyone would be a mage.
Fine, as I have repeatedly said, let them be inquisitive. Let them
analyze magic and magic theory. But remember that that is NOT the same
thing as a modern scientific mindset. The mage doesn't have to use the
Scientific Method just because they're inquisitive.
> > Sure because you grew up expecting that question have answers and that
> > the universe is a fundamentally understandable place. That is a very
> > recent development in terms of the entire span of human history. Did a
> > medieval peasant experiment to find out the best grain for planting or
> > how to optimize crop yields? No, he did it "the way it's always been
> > done" because that way guarranteed a certain level of results.
>
> Again, this presumes a midieval peasant would have been capable of
> becoming a mage in the first place. How do you explain Euclid,
> Pythagoras, etc? Rational thought is not new, and very little has
> changed in terms of how people behave today. We all behave, in some
> respects, just as the peasant did. How many people actually understand
> how a car works? Yet they use them every day. The fact that a peasant
> might be simple minded, or used the technologies he knew about without
> question, does not in any way suggest that the powers that were behaved
> in the same manner.
I heard it said once that, "The so-called Dark Ages were simply a return
to the kind of life that existed before the Greeks." Sure, do a fantasy
world where magic is investigated like the Greeks or Romans might have
done. Just remember that that is not the same as a modern, scientific
mindset.
Mark
ed
On 9 Apr 1997 09:05:18 -0600, in rec.games.frp.misc you wrote:
>In article <5if9vr$nkl$1...@nntp-2.io.com>, Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> wrote:
>>Some ideas I had in the area of comapring magic to tech...
>>
>>1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
>>boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :)
>
>Well, that's what engineers do in my favorite SF stories --
>and I've often felt it was a fault in SF RPGs that they didn't
>have a Baling Wire & Instant Invention Repair & Invent skill.
>Otherwise, how can I have a Richard Seaton?
>
In a GURPS Supers game I was in, the GM had a "MacGyver Science" Power,
basically if you could describe it in a plausible manner and make your
roll, you could do it.
ed
(This was originally emailed by mistake to you, Lee rather than posted
to the NG)
Thraka
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> Robert J Becraft wrote:
> >
> > Scientific analysis/methodology is the imposition of rules on chaos.
> > Just because it appears that science is being imposed on magic does not
> > mean that the magic follows the rules of science. If anything, magic
> > defies most of the natural scientific "rules" of our world. Within
> > those rules, magic cannot and does not exist.
>
> Not quite. In real life, magic *was* the science of the ancient world.
> Magic represented an attempt to understand the "chaos" (as you put it).
> Yet it was all done *without* Scientific analysis.
It sounds as if we have here a classic case of a non-scientific
mentality trying to convince himself that in his fantasy world, everyone
would think as he does. ;) Define Scinetific analysis and explain,
please, how you know it was not done.
> > To explain the laws of magic in the sense that you would like to do so
> > requires exactly the science that you seek to exclude from your
> > description, thus making it virtually uninterpretable by anyone in this
> > reality who bases their understanding on the scientific rules associated
> > with the interpretation of magic.
>
> No, it requires the ability to classify and analyze, but this IS NOT
> SCIENCE.
It is the very _crnerston_ of science!
> > Even you would not understand magic of this nature, as much as you would
> > like to have a set of "rules" that obtained that description for you.
> > Magic defined in a non-scientific way would defie the manner in which we
> > as humans have been taught to understand our universe.
>
> You are confusing Rationalism with Science. Rationalism is the attempt
> to understand the universe by "disecting" it, by breaking it into little
> bits to learn how they work.
There is very little difference.
> With Science, I'm talking about the
> Scientific Method (TM). Why do you think I keep *capitalizing* it??
Have you a point here somewhere? Can you explain to us exactly how the
scientific mathod is anything but an orderly stating of rationalism?
> The
> ancient Greeks and Romans DID NOT use the Scientific Method, yet they
> regularly analyzed their world. Do you understand? I'm not arguing
> against Rational Magic, just against Scientific Magic.
The most certainly did use the scientific method. Perhaps not in
ironclad, discrete steps, but as any learned man educates himself about
the world. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Do you
honestly believe that the greeks, or anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and education, would not perform three basic tasks in
acquiring new knowledge: experiment, observe, draw conclusions. They
are the most fundamental steps of the process, you know. Everything
else is organization, or presumed.
> I can understand that it is difficult for you to break out of your
> modern mindset. Keep trying!
I understand that you want to believe magic should be an art, but if it
is reproducable, and causes things to happen, it's a science. If it
isn't reporoduceable, it cannot be tought, cannot be passed down except
genetically perhaps. No one will every be a 'skilled wizard' because
there is no way for him to determine his success. What is it you are
trying to accomplish with all these gyrations, anyway? Perhaps it
should be approached from another angle?
Thraka
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> Thraka wrote:
> >
> > Mark Apolinski wrote:
> > >
> > > Why would you assume that he would experiment? Perhaps he would in a
> > > "typical fantasy world" which assumes a scientific, modern mindset. I
> > > don't think it should.
> >
> > This line of reasoning seems common on the unreliable side of the fence,
> > but it is flawed. It presumes that a mage is of the same mindset as the
> > rest of the population. It seems to me that in order to be a sorceror,
> > one would have to be of an inquisitive mindset, or one of two things
> > would occur: there would be no mages, or everyone would be a mage.
>
> Fine, as I have repeatedly said, let them be inquisitive. Let them
> analyze magic and magic theory. But remember that that is NOT the same
> thing as a modern scientific mindset. The mage doesn't have to use the
> Scientific Method just because they're inquisitive.
The scientific method is fairly rudimentary, my friend. Tyr something,
if it works, now you know. It is nothing more, at its most base level,
than record keeping. I find it absolutely preposterous that you would
believe intelligent people in any time would simply view the world as
immutable. Explain, then, f this is their belief, why they practice
sorcery at all, since, by definition, it is something to change the
rules of the way things work. Explain alchemy, astrology, and any
number of other "sciences" of the time. The fact that they were wrong
did not necessarily mean that they did not have rudimentary logic at
their disposal. Perhaps you are simply wishing it were so?
> > Again, this presumes a midieval peasant would have been capable of
> > becoming a mage in the first place. How do you explain Euclid,
> > Pythagoras, etc? Rational thought is not new, and very little has
> > changed in terms of how people behave today. We all behave, in some
> > respects, just as the peasant did. How many people actually understand
> > how a car works? Yet they use them every day. The fact that a peasant
> > might be simple minded, or used the technologies he knew about without
> > question, does not in any way suggest that the powers that were behaved
> > in the same manner.
>
> I heard it said once that, "The so-called Dark Ages were simply a return
> to the kind of life that existed before the Greeks." Sure, do a fantasy
> world where magic is investigated like the Greeks or Romans might have
> done. Just remember that that is not the same as a modern, scientific
> mindset.
It seems pointless to discuss this further with you. You continue to
assert the very point I question as valid. I do not accept your
contention that there exists a so called "moder scientific mindset" that
differs greatly from the mindset of the educated in the past. Perhaps
there were fewer educated people, or certain knowledges were wrong or
suppressed by the powers that be, but to suggest that the educated of
the time were simply buffoons incapable of learning is rediculous.
Robert J Becraft
> Try imagining a world where magic works, but is not
> scientifically analyzed.
Ahhhhhh, a world of chaos.
Law requires rules, hence, for magic to exist in a world of Law, it must
follow rules. If it does not follow rules, it must be a world of chaos
seeking the intervention of law. The classic good vs evil episode.
Scientific analysis/methodology is the imposition of rules on chaos.
Just because it appears that science is being imposed on magic does not
mean that the magic follows the rules of science. If anything, magic
defies most of the natural scientific "rules" of our world. Within
those rules, magic cannot and does not exist.
Man's quest to understand the unknown (chaos), and to file it away in
neat little cubicles of understanding (laws), is part of his humanity.
Imbed human virtues into a world composed of the chaos of magic, you
find that that world is brought under control by the same methodologies
that bring order and understanding to our own world.
To explain the laws of magic in the sense that you would like to do so
requires exactly the science that you seek to exclude from your
description, thus making it virtually uninterpretable by anyone in this
reality who bases their understanding on the scientific rules associated
with the interpretation of magic.
Even you would not understand magic of this nature, as much as you would
Mark Apolinski
Robert J Becraft wrote:
>
> Scientific analysis/methodology is the imposition of rules on chaos.
> Just because it appears that science is being imposed on magic does not
> mean that the magic follows the rules of science. If anything, magic
> defies most of the natural scientific "rules" of our world. Within
> those rules, magic cannot and does not exist.
Not quite. In real life, magic *was* the science of the ancient world.
Magic represented an attempt to understand the "chaos" (as you put it).
Yet it was all done *without* Scientific analysis.
> Man's quest to understand the unknown (chaos), and to file it away in
> neat little cubicles of understanding (laws), is part of his humanity.
> Imbed human virtues into a world composed of the chaos of magic, you
> find that that world is brought under control by the same methodologies
> that bring order and understanding to our own world.
>
> To explain the laws of magic in the sense that you would like to do so
> requires exactly the science that you seek to exclude from your
> description, thus making it virtually uninterpretable by anyone in this
> reality who bases their understanding on the scientific rules associated
> with the interpretation of magic.
No, it requires the ability to classify and analyze, but this IS NOT
SCIENCE.
> Even you would not understand magic of this nature, as much as you would
> like to have a set of "rules" that obtained that description for you.
> Magic defined in a non-scientific way would defie the manner in which we
> as humans have been taught to understand our universe.
You are confusing Rationalism with Science. Rationalism is the attempt
to understand the universe by "disecting" it, by breaking it into little
bits to learn how they work. With Science, I'm talking about the
Scientific Method (TM). Why do you think I keep *capitalizing* it?? The
ancient Greeks and Romans DID NOT use the Scientific Method, yet they
regularly analyzed their world. Do you understand? I'm not arguing
against Rational Magic, just against Scientific Magic.
I can understand that it is difficult for you to break out of your
modern mindset. Keep trying!
Mark
Gil Colgate
Thraka wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm going to weigh in on the "Why, yes, of course" side of this.
> > > Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
> > > new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
> > > variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
> > > this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
Unless of course, magic is inherently inconsistent: the closer you look,
the more of Murphy's law you
see.
> Such discoveries needed groundwork be laid to facilitate their
> emergence, communications being a key technology. The chinese did have
> gunpowder, BTW. But you are discussing the creation of radically new
> things, not the evolution of things known to exist. In a world where
> magic exists, and is known to exist, the simple desire of one king to
> conquer another would ensure development of magical theory, as certainly
> as it would mettalurgy and shipbuilding. When a force is known to
> exist, those in power have always struggled to tame it and use it to
> their own ends.
If magic, for example, involved the use of spirits, who might change
their opinions and
motivations, than a "science" of magic would be as likely and effective
as a "science"
of government. It would do no good to perfect a fireball spell, and then
find out that the
"Djinni" of earth had made fire balls ineffective because too many of
his monsters were
being killed.
>
> > > I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
> > > something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
> > > eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
> > > of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
> > > bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
> > > certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
> > > have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
> > > weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
> > > eventually the program was debugged.
Programs are not mysterious: they are inherently logical, and you have
plenty of opportunities
to test them. Magic that needs the right time, the right place, and the
right stars in the sky to
operate would not be testable: except once. Perhaps a mage might read
some old books and come up
with a theory that if he casts a spell on the night of the lunar eclipse
while chanting certain
old songs etc. he might be able to raise the dead... but he won't know
until he tries. And
should he succeed... what part of what he did was neccessary, and what
part just superstitious
fluff?
> No, that is a mideival peasant, who would probably never become a mage.
> This has no bearing whatsoever on the behavior or mindset of a mage.
Ever since the invention of modern science, Chinese acupuncturists have
revised the places where
they stick needles into patients. Due to the rigors of scientific
method, they have reduced the
places where they stick needles in to the effective spots... formerly,
in less scientific times,
the reasonable, educated, acupuncturists had included many spots based
on tradition and not
proof. I cannot expect that medieval mages would be any more reasonable:
they did believe
that the sun went around the earth, and that heavy weights fell faster,
since it was so written.....
Warren Grant
>> Try imagining a world where magic works, but is not
>> scientifically analyzed.
>
>
>Ahhhhhh, a world of chaos.
>
>Law requires rules, hence, for magic to exist in a world of Law, it must
>follow rules. If it does not follow rules, it must be a world of chaos
>seeking the intervention of law. The classic good vs evil episode.
>
>Scientific analysis/methodology is the imposition of rules on chaos.
>Just because it appears that science is being imposed on magic does not
>mean that the magic follows the rules of science. If anything, magic
>defies most of the natural scientific "rules" of our world. Within
>those rules, magic cannot and does not exist.
>
>Man's quest to understand the unknown (chaos), and to file it away in
>neat little cubicles of understanding (laws), is part of his humanity.
>Imbed human virtues into a world composed of the chaos of magic, you
>find that that world is brought under control by the same methodologies
>that bring order and understanding to our own world.
>
>To explain the laws of magic in the sense that you would like to do so
>requires exactly the science that you seek to exclude from your
>description, thus making it virtually uninterpretable by anyone in this
>reality who bases their understanding on the scientific rules associated
>with the interpretation of magic.
>
>Even you would not understand magic of this nature, as much as you would
>like to have a set of "rules" that obtained that description for you.
>Magic defined in a non-scientific way would defie the manner in which we
>as humans have been taught to understand our universe.
I think perhaps you misinterpret my comment. I meant what I said,
which was (to expand) imagine a world in which magic works, but the
practioners of magic do not apply the current scientific methodology
to analyze it.
I only mentioned this to remind the other guy that we are discussing
the fact that in the medieval period the scientific methodology did
not exist per se. People were simply not as mentally organized as we
are accustomed to in the modern day. There was a different mode of
thought which it is hard to break out of in analyzing game mechanics
and in playing RPGs.
I did not mean to imply that magic would not follow some sort of laws,
or that there was no structure to its working, just that it should be
more like the process of creating a painting and less like building
with bricks. I view magic as part "science" and part "art", and most
systems do not really allow for this, they simply let you use magic
like it was a set of golf clubs.
The original discussion was concerning the reliability of magic. I
would like to think we could devise an RPG magic system which is
relatively reliable but still retains an air of mystery about it
during play. An unpredictible element, perhaps only in the description
of spell effects, who knows.
Warren Grant
wgr...@imag.net
Kevin
russell wallace wrote:
The third issue is the nature of the laws of magic.
In order for me to play even an untrained wild talent mage, and do a
good job
of it, there are some restrictions on what the laws governing magic
can be,
even if I don't know those laws at the start of the game.
Basically, I need
them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially,
scientific, even
if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
[snip]
In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at
some level
it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws, even if
they're
different from the ones that hold in real life and even if none of
the
characters or players know them.
Well, the notion that the order of the world is accessible to human
reason is at once classical (eg. Plato) and modern (eg. enlightenment
rationalism). Its worth noting, however, that neither the Platonic age
nor the age of the enlightenment was especially friendly to ideas about
magic. Belief in magic tended to thrive in periods of mysticism, in
which the order of the universe was held to be beyond human
comprehension, or else in which the world was not thought to be orderly
at all (in light of which, I find it intriguing that the "post-modern"
age is also one of resurgent mysticism and belief in magic, witness the
"magic" section in any large book store). As an aside, do note that
neo-platonism (the philosophy and religion that produced hermeticism)
was highly mystical and rejected important rationalist assumptions in
Plato's original philosophy :)
There would appear to be something of a paradox here--for you to believe
in magic, you have also to believe it is rational. No wonder magic
becomes akin to technology in your conception!
Quite the conundrum, it seems to me :)
Just making trouble :)
My best,
Kevin
Timothy Toner
In article <334F2E...@earthlink.net>,
Thraka <spam_fra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The most certainly did use the scientific method. Perhaps not in
>ironclad, discrete steps, but as any learned man educates himself about
>the world. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Do you
>honestly believe that the greeks, or anyone with a modicum of
>intelligence and education, would not perform three basic tasks in
>acquiring new knowledge: experiment, observe, draw conclusions. They
>are the most fundamental steps of the process, you know. Everything
>else is organization, or presumed.
THe twntieth century's bug-a-boo, however, was reproducibility and (here's
the key) CAUSALITY. If you do A to B within the scientific paradigm,
you'll ALWAYS get C. If you don't, then A plus B cannot be proven to
yield C. I'm comfortable in a world where C is generated part of the
time, where we can't count on things working as clockwork as now. It
makes things more dangerous, sure, but at the same time, it creates the
possibility of a wizard class to sort it all out. Only they're not
codifying as much as pushing an experiment and its subsequent conclusion
in a given direction derived through intuition (and sloppy intuition at
that). In the case of the ancients, they didn't sweat the details. FOr
instance, there was the fellow who placed a sphere on an incline, and let
it roll. His interpretation? THe ball will continue to roll, perpetually
seeking its own level. Despite copious evidence to the contraty, this was
a generally accepted principle.
>I understand that you want to believe magic should be an art, but if it
>is reproducable, and causes things to happen, it's a science. If it
>isn't reporoduceable, it cannot be tought, cannot be passed down except
>genetically perhaps. No one will every be a 'skilled wizard' because
>there is no way for him to determine his success. What is it you are
>trying to accomplish with all these gyrations, anyway? Perhaps it
>should be approached from another angle?
Not so. JUst because an event doesn't have absolute reproducibility
doesn't make it unteachable. IN fact, if we take a nod from quantum
physics, that the conscous mind can somehow influence causality, then any
exercise in mental discipline may move the results along in a rather
"unscientific" direction.
--
Timothy Toner --------- School Librarian ---------- than...@interaccess.com
"There is a group--how haughtly their eyes! how overbearing their glance!
There is a group whose incisors are swords, whose teeth are knives, devouring
the needy from the earth, and the poor from among men." Proverbs 30:13
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu> heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu (Dennis F. Hefferman) writes:
> If magic is unreliable, it will not be part of society. And
>"unreliable" doesn't require huge percentage chances of failure; even a 1% or
>2% chance of what passes for a critical miss in most systems will be enough to
>keep magic out of the mainstream when you account for hundreds of mages casting
>thousands of spells. SJG's people wanted magic to be used that way in Yrth,
>and it won't fly at all -- accidental demon summonings would be a daily
>occurance.
I totally agree with you. Most RPGs have failure rates that are
playable and fun for PC parties, but make no sense whatsoever when
you think about the societal implications.
Even worse than regular GURPS is the unlimited-mana system my husband's
group often uses (came out of a Pyramid article). In that one, you
not only lose mages on a regular basis, but can devastate large
hunks of the landscape as well. My PC when I briefly played in that
game was a witch-hunter, someone who killed mages before they could
destroy the land, and I suspect that would be the inevitable development
(if humankind survived discovering magecraft at all).
But an unreliable magic with reasonably mild fumbles (it really helps
if fumble nastiness is proportional to spell power, so that "light
match" doesn't summon Asmodeus) would still get used. Weather
prediction in real life is not terribly reliable, and used to be much
worse, but was worth trying because it helped more than it hurt.
Weather-prediction botches can be dangerous (witness the guy who
crashed in Seattle's last windstorm when he believed the official
wind speed report) but they are generally just nuisances.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
Thraka wrote:
>
> The scientific method is fairly rudimentary, my friend. Try something,
> if it works, now you know. It is nothing more, at its most base level,
> than record keeping. I find it absolutely preposterous that you would
> believe intelligent people in any time would simply view the world as
> immutable. Explain, then, f this is their belief, why they practice
> sorcery at all, since, by definition, it is something to change the
> rules of the way things work. Explain alchemy, astrology, and any
> number of other "sciences" of the time. The fact that they were wrong
> did not necessarily mean that they did not have rudimentary logic at
> their disposal. Perhaps you are simply wishing it were so?
So what you're saying is that the Scientific Method (TM) has *always*
been in existance? Modern Science began with the caveman? I'm sorry, but
I disagree. The Scientific Method (TM) is much more than "Try something;
if it works, now you know."
Medieval sorcery was NOT, by definition, something to change the rules
of the way things work. That is a modern romantic fantasy. Medieval
sorcery was the attempt to understand how the NATURAL laws of the world
caused things to happen. When such laws are understood, so the idea
goes, then man can produce effects according to his desires and the
world will become predictable.
The Scientific Method (TM) is a carefully designed method for arriving
at Truth. It *didn't exist* in the Middle Ages. Take a few history
courses on Magic and Science in the Middle Ages, and you'll see.
Explain *what* about alchemy, astrology, etc.? I never said that they
didn't have rudimentary logic at their disposal. But you are confusing
rudimentary logic, trial and error, and record keeping with the
Scientific Method (TM).
Mark
John S. Novak
>Sure, have a world where magic exists and people will naturally try to
>understand how it works because man is a rational being who tries to
>analyze instinctively. But this instinct to analyze needs to be trained.
>For this fantasy world, just don't feel that the inhabitants would
>automatically use the Scientific Method to understand their magic. They
>will try to understand it, but what if they did so with less refined
>techniques, as in the Middle Ages?
Then it seems to me that, like everything else, magic will take on a
superstitious quality to it, and there will often be things done which
are done only because people believe they need to be done. But the
spells will work just fine without the rigamarole.
However, I don't think this changes Russell's original point-- mages
are going to have a pretty good idea of what they can and cant' do,
just as the craftsmen, artisans, and engineers of antiquity and the
middle ages.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak
>Thousands of years?!
>
>Let's look at Earth. On Earth, we've had civilizations last for long
>periods of time, the Romans, the Chinese, yet none of them managed to
>invent atomic bombs or spaceships or even discover electricity.
Big deal.
The ancients and medievals still managed to improve their lots and
their technology. If they didn't explicitly use the scientific
method, at the very least the occasionally made mistakes-- some of
which worked badly and some of which worked well. A kind of
Darwinistic, accidental experimentation, if you will.
>I would expect a medieval mage to think the same way, "Do the spell this
>way because this is the way that I was taught."
And what happens when his Lord tells him to do something he doesn't
already know how to do?
John S. Novak
>> Not quite. In real life, magic *was* the science of the ancient world.
>> Magic represented an attempt to understand the "chaos" (as you put it).
>> Yet it was all done *without* Scientific analysis.
>It sounds as if we have here a classic case of a non-scientific
>mentality trying to convince himself that in his fantasy world, everyone
>would think as he does. ;) Define Scinetific analysis and explain,
>please, how you know it was not done.
Son, much as I agree with you on some points, you're not doing a great
job convincing people that you know the difference between the
scientific method and rationalism.
Mark is quite correct in this aspect-- the two are not the same.
>> No, it requires the ability to classify and analyze, but this IS NOT
>> SCIENCE.
>It is the very _crnerston_ of science!
That's nice.
And cornerstones aren't castles, either.
Science includes rationalism, and experimentation and the like, but it
needs more than that. It needs a doctrine of falsifiability and a
doctrine of repeatability. It needs to be able to make positive
predictions, then suggest and perform an experiment which either
verifies the idea or discards it.
There must be a way to disprove.
This is something sadly lacking in pre-scientific times.
Without that, we're left discussing theology and spirits and the
little green elves who create the universe anew each moment. None of
these can be disproven, so people go on believing them-- but they are
by no means scientific.
>> You are confusing Rationalism with Science. Rationalism is the attempt
>> to understand the universe by "disecting" it, by breaking it into little
>> bits to learn how they work.
>There is very little difference.
I rarely put on my professional cap, but as an engineer with a more
than adequate backing in the sciences, You Are Wrong. (And no, before
anyone gets on my case, engineering is not a science in the proper
sense of the term either. But a properly educated engineer will be
more than conversant with the sciences and the scientific method.)
>The most certainly did use the scientific method. Perhaps not in
>ironclad, discrete steps, but as any learned man educates himself about
>the world. Do you even know what the scientific method is?
He does.
You don't.
>> I can understand that it is difficult for you to break out of your
>> modern mindset. Keep trying!
>I understand that you want to believe magic should be an art, but if it
>is reproducable, and causes things to happen, it's a science.
No.
Classes of effects are not sciences.
Methods of understanding these effects are sciences.
Chemistry is a science, not because chemical reactions are repeatable,
but because we proceed from the assumption that a true increase of our
knowledge needs to include repeatable AND FALSIFIABLE experiments
regarding the nature of chemical interactions.
Steven Howard
In <5iiud1$o...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>"Stephen B. Mann" <sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu> writes:
>
>>Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
>>new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
>>variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
>>this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
>>However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
>>apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
>>that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
>>Stereotypical Mage's spell?
>
>successfully nailed down:
>
>How do I get someone to fall in love with me? Lots of praxis, but
>no reliable, consistent, repeatable methods.
>
>How do I produce a worthwhile piece of art? Schools teach this, but
>no one has been able to come up with repeatable methods that everyone
>can use. Sure, you can get workmanlike results, but not really
>high-level ones.
>
>How do I breed a really fine animal? Here a *lot* is known about theory
>(I do the theory for a living) but a significant amount of
>guesswork remains in the application, and one is often surprised.
But the reason none of these questions can be answered is that they're
egregiously ill-defined. What does "fall in love" mean? What distinguishes
"worthwhile" art from other kinds? What is "really fine" in this sense? (One
assumes the problem is not to find an animal with the circumference of angel
hair pasta.) On the other hand, SM's question is much narrower and easily
tested. "How can I cast this particular spell without that particular side
effect?" I don't think they're similar at all.
>One might think of spell-casting as being more like these examples than
>like "how do I make a better sword?" or "how do I get an explosion when
>I need one?" Some problems are intrinsically harder than others, or
>less subject to rote experimentation.
Perhaps. But spell-casting of the sort found in most fantasy rpgs (where
Stephen's Stereotypical Mage is likely to be found) is more of a craft than
an art. The entire conceit of spells written in books like recipes or
mathematical formulae presupposes that a particular spell effect can be
replicated by following explicit step-by-step instructions, and that
variation from the instructions would produce a variation in the effects
(or maybe just no effect at all). Experimentation of this sort might be
prohibitively dangerous, but I can't see how it would be ineffective.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word like "euphemism" doing in a sentence like this?
russell wallace
>Well, the notion that the order of the world is accessible to human
>reason is at once classical (eg. Plato) and modern (eg. enlightenment
>rationalism). Its worth noting, however, that neither the Platonic age
>nor the age of the enlightenment was especially friendly to ideas about
>magic.
I agree. My opinion is that this is because magic does not exist in our
world, and the people you refer to were unfriendly to ideas about it
because they had correctly realized that this was the case. In a world
where magic really did exist, rational thinkers would discover it and
incorporate it into their theories about how the universe worked, and
bodies of knowledge about how to exploit the universe for practical
purposes.
>There would appear to be something of a paradox here--for you to believe
>in magic, you have also to believe it is rational. No wonder magic
>becomes akin to technology in your conception!
Precisely.
>Quite the conundrum, it seems to me :)
Not really; this is a perfectly self-consistent view and I need only use
a magic system which is consistent with it, which most of them
fortunately are :)
>Just making trouble :)
Not at all - you quite nicely summed up my position there.
russell wallace
In <5ijnkt$3...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>In article <5ijk72$3...@web3.tcd.ie> rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
>>In <5ih31s$8...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>>A worked out example is the Jump drive in _Radiant_, which is understood
>>>to be magic by its users; it depends on the emotional state of the
>>>pilot and crew more than on physical factors such as the condition of
>>>the engines or the distance between stars.
>>Sure, that could work. Though I can't help thinking, "Why doesn't
>>someone come up with a better design?" Or even, "Failing that, why
>>don't they just put the crew in cold sleep for the journey?" :)
>Most ships put all but essential crew (pilot and engineer) in cold sleep
>for the journey. Chernoi wants to have people awake when something
>goes wrong (she likes to make risky Jumps).
Ah! That makes sense.
>>It's just occurred to me: how do passenger ships in the _Radiant_
>>universe cope with this problem?
>Cold sleep or drugs. Chernoi charges x10 to carry someone conscious,
>but that's the act of a cocky captain; most won't do it at all.
Right.
>In general, you're looking at magical problems as very analogous to
>physics problems: there should be a clean solution, and we'll just
>keep looking at the problem till we find it. This has tended to work
>in physics and engineering, but it never has worked in pyschology or
>sociology, despite the pressing importance of some of the questions.
>Given your .sig, I suspect a magic system arranged along psych/soc lines
>would really get under your skin, but at least it does plausibly answer
>the question "Why can't they make this reliable?"
Right on both counts :)
russell wallace
>> Okay, but in that system, why exactly would one create a new spell on
>> the fly, if one were in a situation where a spell you've already used
>> would do the job and speed and reliability are of the essence? (E.g. a
>> barbarian is coming at you with a broadsword?)
>The position you are in, the condition you are in (eg The spell doesn't
>work when you are wounded due to mana leakage from wounds) the condition
>of ht elocal mana flow, the phase of the moon, indigestion, etc, etc, etc.
>All it means is that, due to the form magic takes, local condition are too
>important to be able to gloss over with a UberSpell. You have to be there,
>be awake and be cognizant of the local situation. In this form.
Fair enough, and I agree one certainly can use a magic system like this;
I just find it very hard to believe that any magic that was reliable
enough for anyone to use at all, wouldn't lend itself to someone coming
up with a spell that would always produce an effect regardless of those
sort of minor variations. Tastes differ.
russell wallace
>It seems pointless to discuss this further with you. You continue to
>assert the very point I question as valid. I do not accept your
>contention that there exists a so called "moder scientific mindset" that
>differs greatly from the mindset of the educated in the past. Perhaps
>there were fewer educated people, or certain knowledges were wrong or
>suppressed by the powers that be, but to suggest that the educated of
>the time were simply buffoons incapable of learning is rediculous.
I'll have to agree with Mark here. Nobody's suggesting that educated
people in ancient times were buffoons incapable of learning, indeed my
thesis has been precisely that people in ancient times did find reliable
ways of getting things done, and they found them by trial and error, and
one would expect the same to occur with magic in a world where magic
worked. However, "the scientific method" refers to something more
specific: it refers to a *particular* organized form of trial and error
based around constructing theories that are *falsifiable* by *publicly
repeatable* experiments, and this particular form of inquiry is
genuinely new.
russell wallace
In <01bc442d$c1fe3210$9c22dd80@cpc135> "David K. Spencer" <dspe...@clariion.com> writes:
>RoleMaster is this way. No matter what, you have somewhere in the
>neighborhood of 1-2% chance of failing, and after that another 15%
>chance or so of getting in some serious trouble from that failure.
>Magic is dangerous.
To be sure. I wasn't disagreeing that some systems are designed in this
way, merely stating my reasons for disliking it.
>I think you should beware of drawing a parallel between real life bad luck
>and "in-game" bad luck. For example, in Mage: The Ascension, we had one
>player who had consistent bad luck with botching magical effects. She
>came to the conclusion (in-game) that she was bad at magick. And why
And by the sound of things, the player didn't mind. But what if she had
wanted to play the character concept she originally created - one who
was good at magic?
>not? There's no reason to equate out-of-game bad luck to in-game bad
>luck. Perhaps there's a real valid reason for the magic to fail in-game.
>Perhaps the character's self-doubt surfaces at a very unfortunate moment.
>Perhaps the fabric of reality hiccupped. Whatever the reason, it might not
>be merely luck, in-game. I guess this depends a lot on your players and
>GM, though. For example, in Mage: TA, the player decided it made perfect
>sense for her character to decide she was bad at using magick. In fact,
>it led to a very interesting character evolution, as she decided the
>reason she was bad at magick was because she was too often in the city,
>surrounded by technology--she fled to the wilderness (and retired the
>character--but that's another story) in an attempt to get back in touch
Unfortunately, the character's conclusion was wrong, and going back to
the wilderness would not have helped; her chance of botching would have
been precisely the same as before. Perhaps just as well the character
was retired :)
>: I'm generally not willing to attempt to play a trained, professional mage
>: unless I have a clear understanding of how magic works in the game world,
>: because otherwise I don't have the knowledge my character would have, and
>: therefore I don't have the information I need to play him.
>Unless, of course, the trained, professional mage doesn't understand how
>magic works in the game world. See Mage: The Ascension. See Arcane
>Magic, as used in RoleMaster.
Even if the mage doesn't understand the theory behind it. People have
always used reliable techniques discovered by trial and error, without
knowing why they worked - see the other posts on that issue.
>: Basically, I need
>: them to be reasonably objective and impartial - essentially, scientific,
>even
>: if not necessarily based on the scientific principles we know.
>That's really tough. Magic isn't always supposed to be scientific. Take,
>for example, religious magic. In RoleMaster, there is a whole realm of
>magic which works off the power of the "gods." This is the magic of
>Clerics, etc... who are basically working miracles with every spell,
>calling on their gods to empower them. It's quite possible that a god
>will allow or not allow a spell to work, with little or no way for a
>mortal (after all, how can a mortal understand the reasoning of an
>immortal god!) to understand why it happened that way...
One can design a system like this. I have a lot of trouble working with
such a system, though. (That's why I never play clerics in AD&D - well,
the system is the same as it is for AD&D mages, but I can't really
assimilat the mindset.)
>: Another posted example was one where using magic depended on the whim of
>the
>: spirits one was dealing with. Again, I probably wouldn't play a mage in
>a game
>: like that; there's nothing terribly mysterious about the required mindset
>here,
>: but it's not one I enjoy or am particularly good at.
>There's a perfect example. Through fantasy literature, and real history,
>there are plenty of examples of people whose magic only works based on the
>whims of higher powers, be those higher powers spirits or God or whatever.
>I think cutting that out of consideration for use in fantasy RPGing really
>hamstrings your ability to capture a lot of incredible stories and moods.
*shrug* People vary in what they can work with. I'll leave handling
spirit magic to those who can do a good job of it :)
>: In order to maintain SOD in a world, I have to have the view that at some
>level
>: it's governed by impartial, rational, scientific laws,
>You must have had trouble with Mage :)
I don't like the botch system, but the world I can handle (see below).
>: For example, the official metaphysics of Mage: The Ascension is that
>belief
>: directly determines reality - in other words, 5,000 years ago the Earth
>: genuinely was flat. Now, I haven't a prayer of maintaining SOD in a
>world like
>: that. Fortunately, I don't have to; it's perfectly possible to play the
>game
>: without accepting the official metaphysics as being true, which is what I
>do.
>Exactly. But of course, by choosing to play characters whose belief is
>frozen out of accepting this sort of metaphysics, you're really crippling
>them, and your enjoyment of the game.
It depends on what character I'm playing. If I'm playing an Akashic
Brother, say, then he'll probably go with the official metaphysics even
while I retain the metagame belief that he's wrong. But if I'm playing
a Virtual Adept or Void Engineer, it's much more reasonable for them to
hold my views on the subject, and I am certainly not crippling either
the character or my enjoyment of the game by letting them do so.
> The concept that belief shapes
>reality
>is not the original province of Mage--it's a philosophical concept which is
>really quite fascinating in its own right.
And one which I find logically incoherent.
> The metaphysics of Mage is why
>I loved the game so much! Exploring the world through the eyes of people
>who
>are able to see beyond the curtian of the belief-shaped-reality is an
>incredible experience, and well worth the adjustment time of trying to
>accept
>that sort of world-view yourself...
Not so much a question of adjustment time as of what I can really
identify with regardless of the time spent at it.
>Interesting post!
Thanks!
Mark Apolinski
I dunno. Probably the same thing that his armorer does when he says,
"Make me some better armor!"
Mark
Eric Tolle
rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) wrote:
>In <5if9vr$nkl$1...@nntp-2.io.com> Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> writes:
>But if we make an analogy between spells and technological artifacts,
>then surely it's *creating* a spell that is analogous to the slow and
>unreliable process of designing a machine or writing a computer program,
>and casting a spell is analogous to the fast and reliable process of
>*using* one.
It could also be compared to the process of designing a
machine/program and _building_ it. In this analogy, there would be a
three step process: creation of a spell (design, RandD), ritual to
build up the power (Manufacture), ad Release (usage). This might
work well if every spell is considerd an artifact
Then again, we can push these analogies way to far....
>>2) Reality. In RL we know drek loads about engineering, chemistry and so
>>on. Yet disaters happen anyway (Bhopal, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the
>Quantity matters. The probability that a 747, for example, will crash
>on its next flight is, what, 0.00001%? Less? Systems which include
>random failure for magic generally put the failure probability at
>something like 5-10%.
On the other hand, the failure rate when I log onto my server is
around fifty-to seventy percent- I have to redail up to ten times.
Likewise I'd say the failure rate for a number of my other internet
applications is around five percent...
Eric Tolle unde...@rain.org
"An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the
terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's
crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Eric Tolle
rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) wrote:
>In <334BDF...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>russell wallace wrote:
>>>
>>> You seem to be referring to real life here. I really don't think this
>>> is applicable, because I hold the opinion that we never see spirits or
>>> magic spells, for the reason that such things cannot exist under the
>>> natural laws that operate in our universe. If we postulate a universe
>>> with laws that do allow magic to work, it seems to me more reasonable to
>>> suppose that it would work consistently.
>>There are those who would disagree with you.
>To be sure.
I'd like to note that in real life it is not just a matter that a
given magic ritual doesen't work- there are reasons invairably given,
ranging from: "The gods did not approve of our sacrifice", to "
someone is interfereing", to "your will/concentration/spirituality
was not strong enough". Now whether or not these are excuses to save
face is another story- the real salient point is that if magic is
modeled off of real life situations, then both sides in this debate
are right- there are reproducable causes and effects _and_ it is
erratic.
Think of it like freshman college students doing chemistry- no
duplication of results there...;')
>I can certainly imagine a world in which magic works, but the scientific
>method as we know it is not known. It still seems to me, however, that
>magic would be developed in the same way as technology was developed in
>pre-modern times: I know that if I do X and Y, Z will happen, even if I
>don't know the reason for it.
That depends on the culture- 'magic users' i.e. shamens, priests,
witches, and the like) have social functions far beyond the cause and
effect realm- in fact it could be argued that the most important
aspect of those practicioners is their social/psychological value.
Likewise, it is quite possible for one to have a situation where the
practicioner may know that a given ritual will work or not work
according to unknown factors- it would be a "if I do X and Y, Z
_might_ happen." type of situation. The common situation for me is "I
puch these buttons, and flick this switch, and sometimes my monitor
gives me a picture, sometimes a mass of blurry lines". ;')
Lets face it- to most of the users on usenet, the programs they are
using might as well be magic- and equally as reliable.
Warren Grant
On 12 Apr 1997 09:58:12 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu> heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu (Dennis F. Hefferman) writes:
>
>> If magic is unreliable, it will not be part of society. And
>>"unreliable" doesn't require huge percentage chances of failure; even a 1% or
>>2% chance of what passes for a critical miss in most systems will be enough to
>>keep magic out of the mainstream when you account for hundreds of mages casting
>>thousands of spells. SJG's people wanted magic to be used that way in Yrth,
>>and it won't fly at all -- accidental demon summonings would be a daily
>>occurance.
>
>I totally agree with you. Most RPGs have failure rates that are
>playable and fun for PC parties, but make no sense whatsoever when
>you think about the societal implications.
Most fantasy RPG's that I have read have not really thought through
the implications of magic existing at all. For instance, who would
fight a medieval field battle in the AD&D universe? No one would
volunteer to fight in any army that might encounter a mage, since only
1 fireball could take out a sizable unit pretty effectively. Combat on
the battlefield in the presence of magic would devolve into a series
of skirmishes, in small groups scattered across the field of conflict.
Don't bunch up or your torched.
The Feudal system would probably not survive the first mage who
decided they wanted to be in charge.
I tend to prefer low magic RPGs, where its very rare, rather weak,
subtle in its use and results, and feared by the ignorant masses. This
seems much more believable to me.
>
>Even worse than regular GURPS is the unlimited-mana system my husband's
>group often uses (came out of a Pyramid article). In that one, you
>not only lose mages on a regular basis, but can devastate large
>hunks of the landscape as well. My PC when I briefly played in that
>game was a witch-hunter, someone who killed mages before they could
>destroy the land, and I suspect that would be the inevitable development
>(if humankind survived discovering magecraft at all).
Maybe thats why the Inquisition was started. Maybe the authors of the
Malleus Mallificarum (disgusting book) knew more than we have been led
to understand -:>
>But an unreliable magic with reasonably mild fumbles (it really helps
>if fumble nastiness is proportional to spell power, so that "light
>match" doesn't summon Asmodeus) would still get used. Weather
>prediction in real life is not terribly reliable, and used to be much
>worse, but was worth trying because it helped more than it hurt.
>Weather-prediction botches can be dangerous (witness the guy who
>crashed in Seattle's last windstorm when he believed the official
>wind speed report) but they are generally just nuisances.
Creative GMing of mistakes can be a real hoot. I agree that most
failure rates are far greater than should be if we were recreating the
real world, but it would make for awfully dull RPGing. In most cases,
skill checks would result in how long it took, not whether you failed
or not.
Warren Grant
wgr...@imag.net
John H Kim
A comment here on the "scientific method".
Warren Grant <wgr...@imag.net> wrote:
>I meant what I said, which was (to expand) imagine a world in which
>magic works, but the practioners of magic do not apply the current
>scientific methodology to analyze it.
Sure, I can imagine that. I don't quite see it's relevance,
though. As I understood it, the discussion was simply about
whether the magicians would rationally analyze what it was they
were doing. That doesn't depend on current scientific methodology.
>
>I only mentioned this to remind the other guy that we are discussing
>the fact that in the medieval period the scientific methodology did
>not exist per se. People were simply not as mentally organized as we
>are accustomed to in the modern day. There was a different mode of
>thought which it is hard to break out of in analyzing game mechanics
>and in playing RPGs.
I agree that it is hard to get into a medieval mindset.
However, I don't believe that medieval people were somehow less
mentally organized. IMO, there is a tendency to view medieval
beliefs as "irrational" simply because today we believe that
they are false.
I agree to some degree that there were different modes of
thought -- especially in scholasticism. However, I think that
often people will just use the excuse of "Oh, medieval people
simply thought differently -- that's why they had these irrational
beliefs."
I think that it can be more enlightening to play a
medieval character rationally -- taking into account what she
knows and was taught. More often than not, there were quite
rational and intelligent reasons for their beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
russell wallace
>rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) wrote:
>>In <334BDF...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>russell wallace wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be referring to real life here. I really don't think this
>>>> is applicable, because I hold the opinion that we never see spirits or
>>>> magic spells, for the reason that such things cannot exist under the
>>>> natural laws that operate in our universe. If we postulate a universe
>>>> with laws that do allow magic to work, it seems to me more reasonable to
>>>> suppose that it would work consistently.
>>>There are those who would disagree with you.
>>To be sure.
>I'd like to note that in real life it is not just a matter that a
>given magic ritual doesen't work- there are reasons invairably given,
>ranging from: "The gods did not approve of our sacrifice", to "
>someone is interfereing", to "your will/concentration/spirituality
>was not strong enough".
I can answer this, but we're getting to the stage where my answers would
be liable to cause offense to people who believe in real life magic, so
I'll leave it; let me know if you want to continue that debate by email.
>Think of it like freshman college students doing chemistry- no
>duplication of results there...;')
Due to the inexperience of the people involved. A professional chemist
can reliably reproduce results. I've always agreed that using magic in
a way which pushes the envelope of what the practitioner knows how to do
should be unreliable.
>>I can certainly imagine a world in which magic works, but the scientific
>>method as we know it is not known. It still seems to me, however, that
>>magic would be developed in the same way as technology was developed in
>>pre-modern times: I know that if I do X and Y, Z will happen, even if I
>>don't know the reason for it.
>That depends on the culture- 'magic users' i.e. shamens, priests,
>witches, and the like) have social functions far beyond the cause and
>effect realm- in fact it could be argued that the most important
>aspect of those practicioners is their social/psychological value.
IMO, this was because it was their only aspect.
>Likewise, it is quite possible for one to have a situation where the
>practicioner may know that a given ritual will work or not work
>according to unknown factors- it would be a "if I do X and Y, Z
>_might_ happen." type of situation. The common situation for me is "I
>puch these buttons, and flick this switch, and sometimes my monitor
>gives me a picture, sometimes a mass of blurry lines". ;')
>Lets face it- to most of the users on usenet, the programs they are
>using might as well be magic- and equally as reliable.
Programs can be, and commonly are, engineered to have a failure chance
far less than 2%, which is AFAIK the smallest nonzero failure chance
assigned by any game system under any circumstances.
russell wallace
>Most fantasy RPG's that I have read have not really thought through
>the implications of magic existing at all. For instance, who would
>fight a medieval field battle in the AD&D universe? No one would
>volunteer to fight in any army that might encounter a mage, since only
>1 fireball could take out a sizable unit pretty effectively. Combat on
>the battlefield in the presence of magic would devolve into a series
>of skirmishes, in small groups scattered across the field of conflict.
>Don't bunch up or your torched.
If mages are reasonably common, yes. Once any form of firepower becomes
sufficiently effective, fighting in massed ranks will cease to be a
useful combat tactic.
>The Feudal system would probably not survive the first mage who
>decided they wanted to be in charge.
Not quite sure how you figure this - the king's mage allies would
probably have something to say on the matter? (In fact, precisely this
sort of situation is one of the staples of high fantasy.)
>I tend to prefer low magic RPGs, where its very rare, rather weak,
>subtle in its use and results, and feared by the ignorant masses. This
>seems much more believable to me.
On magic being rare, I agree with you, not on grounds of believability,
but if one wants to keep the traditional fantasy atmosphere.
>Creative GMing of mistakes can be a real hoot.
Sure. Not much fun for the player who wanted to roleplay a competent
mage, though.
>I agree that most
>failure rates are far greater than should be if we were recreating the
>real world, but it would make for awfully dull RPGing.
I agree with you, provided the intended genre is slapstick comedy, but
not if the game was supposed to be high fantasy.
>In most cases,
>skill checks would result in how long it took, not whether you failed
>or not.
For an unopposed attempt to do something well within the character's
abilities, yes, same as for most other skills. What's wrong with that?
ed
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 05:47:03 GMT, wgr...@imag.net (Warren Grant) wrote:
>On 12 Apr 1997 09:58:12 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
>(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
>>In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu> heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu (Dennis F. Hefferman) writes:
>Most fantasy RPG's that I have read have not really thought through
>the implications of magic existing at all. For instance, who would
>fight a medieval field battle in the AD&D universe? No one would
>volunteer to fight in any army that might encounter a mage, since only
>1 fireball could take out a sizable unit pretty effectively. Combat on
>the battlefield in the presence of magic would devolve into a series
>of skirmishes, in small groups scattered across the field of conflict.
>Don't bunch up or your torched.
Nope. Either counter-mages would nullify the effects or the mage would
still be vunerable to massed arrow storms. A mage may have 5x the
firepower of an ordinary soldier but he dies as easily.
>The Feudal system would probably not survive the first mage who
>decided they wanted to be in charge.
Again he has to sleep. He'd be vunerable to the assassins blade or the
poisoner's art.
ed
Joshua Macy
ed wrote:
>
> >>In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu> heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu (Dennis F. Hefferman) writes:
>
> >The Feudal system would probably not survive the first mage who
> >decided they wanted to be in charge.
>
> Again he has to sleep. He'd be vunerable to the assassins blade or the
> poisoner's art.
>
So were kings. That didn't stop them from being, for the most part,
those who had the power to seize the throne. I don't know that it would
eliminate the feudal system as much as make an alternate field of
specialization for the power-hungry....
ed
On 13 Apr 1997 13:47:48 GMT, rwal...@tcd.ie (russell wallace) wrote:
>
>>The Feudal system would probably not survive the first mage who
>>decided they wanted to be in charge.
>
>Not quite sure how you figure this - the king's mage allies would
>probably have something to say on the matter? (In fact, precisely this
>sort of situation is one of the staples of high fantasy.)
>
A C&S campaing I was in where by the vagaries of the dice led to a
Magic-using PC become heir to the throne and then the King led to a
civil war.
We examined the use of Magic as an instrument of power in that game and
it's like you having a machine gun being faced with 500 spear-armed
opponents, yes you'll kill lots but they have to only get lucky ONCE and
the mage is dead.
Mages will tend to cancel each other out, undermining each others' quest
for power
ed
Warren Grant
On 13 Apr 1997 13:10:49 GMT, jh...@namaste.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
wrote:
> A comment here on the "scientific method".
>
>Warren Grant <wgr...@imag.net> wrote:
>>I meant what I said, which was (to expand) imagine a world in which
>>magic works, but the practioners of magic do not apply the current
>>scientific methodology to analyze it.
>
> Sure, I can imagine that. I don't quite see it's relevance,
>though. As I understood it, the discussion was simply about
>whether the magicians would rationally analyze what it was they
>were doing. That doesn't depend on current scientific methodology.
Oh, I had thought the discussion was more along the lines of whether
or not magic should be scientifically analyzable and repeatable in the
sense that modern scientific studies are. Thus my arguement that we
need to divest ourselves of the modern scientific approach to
everything, and try and enter a medieval mindset (not an easy thing to
do of course). I have no doubt that they would analyze what they are
doing in some cases, but that tradition, and (by modern standards)
incorrect analysis of the cause and effects of various magical
practices would abound. I also do not think they would engage in the
modern scientific process of "form a theory, test it out, if it fails,
refine it, test that out, etc" (perhaps poorly phrased, I am not a
scientist) that people would almost automatically assume in the modern
day. It would be much less refined and defined. More haphazard in
application...
> I agree that it is hard to get into a medieval mindset.
>However, I don't believe that medieval people were somehow less
>mentally organized. IMO, there is a tendency to view medieval
>beliefs as "irrational" simply because today we believe that
>they are false.
All to true. If a medieval RPG provided a bit of an overview
of medieval beliefs, that set the tone for "common knowledge" held by
most of the population, this might put the players well along the road
to entering the right mindset.
I am sure that medieval beliefs were often more or less
rational given the information they had to work with. OTOH, the did
not seem to go into change or experimentation in a big way until the
influx of classical ideas (and I think some Islamic ones) with the
advent of the rennaisance.
Certainly I would have thought that the 4 humours theory of
medecine might have quickly been abandoned otherwise, as not working
(since if I recall, going to a doctor was often a death knell). Unless
of course it worked, albeit for the wrong reasons.
> I agree to some degree that there were different modes of
>thought -- especially in scholasticism. However, I think that
>often people will just use the excuse of "Oh, medieval people
>simply thought differently -- that's why they had these irrational
>beliefs."
Yeah, we tend to oversimplify their knowledge and intelligence, and to
dismiss out of hand anything which conflicts with our current
attitudes and experiences. This particularly shows up when RPGs look
at the morality of ancient civilzations, almost exclusively from our
modern (christian) point of view. We have hard time divorcing
ourselves from our own morality and accepting that others had
different standards.
To the Aztecs, for instance, human sacrifice was inherently moral, and
formed part of their civilization and religion. Now to us this is
abhorent, and when it is written up as a (for instance AD&D)
environment the Priests of Huitzilopochtli would no doubt be Evil.
I admit that I cannot place myself inside that morality paradigm, but
I can acknowledge that they probably did not think that what they were
doing was wrong when they sacrifced someone...
> I think that it can be more enlightening to play a
>medieval character rationally -- taking into account what she
>knows and was taught. More often than not, there were quite
>rational and intelligent reasons for their beliefs.
Yes, I have always sought to place myself inside the mindset of my
character given their origins and culture. I find this a fascinatiing
excercise and one of the most enjoyable aspects of RPGing for me.
Warren Grant
wgr...@imag.net
Peter Jackson
In article <334C7D...@cnsvax.albany.edu>, Stephen B. Mann
<URL:mailto:sm6...@cnsvax.albany.edu> wrote:
> I'm too logically- and technologically-minded to believe that
> something is so chaotic and unknowable that somebody can't figure it out
> eventually. In my mind, I equate a spell with a computer program, a list
> of instructions for manipulating the magical energy. I've spent quite a
> bit of time debugging C++ spells....errrrr, programs (well, they
> certainly seemed chaotic and mysterious during my CSI 210 final!) and
> have never had a program be unsolvable. Sometimes it took me days and
> weeks, and lots of help from friends and teaching assistants, but
> eventually the program was debugged.
I never seen a complex computer program that was completely debugged. The
first major system I was involved in took over 2 years to write and I had
been supporting it for 5 years when I left the company. There was still at
least one bug in it. It would crash about twice a year, but the effort to
debug it would have cost more that the crashes were costing, so we didn't
bother.
--
Peter Jackson - work address pjac...@uk.oracle.com
Everything I write is my own opinion
Peter Jackson
In article <5igupr$h...@web3.tcd.ie>, russell wallace
<URL:mailto:rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> In <5igb7e$e...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> lg...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Lee Gold) writes:
>
> >>1) Time differences. Magicians are often whipping out spells bing bang
> >>boom. Anyone here think an engineer could do the same as fast? :)
>
> >Well, that's what engineers do in my favorite SF stories --
> >and I've often felt it was a fault in SF RPGs that they didn't
> >have a Baling Wire & Instant Invention Repair & Invent skill.
> >Otherwise, how can I have a Richard Seaton?
>
> GURPS B-Movies (can't remember if this was the exact title) apparently
> lumped all science/tech skills into a single skill, "Science!"
> [sic], which could be used to do pretty much anything you liked,
> including that.
It was GURPS Atomic Horror that introduced Science!. Compendium I also
includes it. However it does not allow instant invention, just knowing
something about everything scientific. That requires the 50 point version
of Gadgeteer (in Supers and Compendium I).
Mary K. Kuhner
Fireball doesn't have half the implications for the political system
that mind reading, lie detection, and mind control would. People have
always had methods for killing each other, and society adapts to those;
but forthright mind control is *very* tricky stuff to deal with. If
I can make the King do what I want, who needs to be King? Let him take
the risks while I pull the strings.
Plausible societies that have come to terms with this, in my experience,
tend to be quite unearthly; whereas fireballs can be easily enough
modelled as artillery.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Gordon Sellar
In article <334D29...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Stephen B. Mann wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to weigh in on the "Why, yes, of course" side of this.
> > Picture your typical fantasy world. Stereotypical Mage has stumbled on a
> > new spell. It doesn't work well, it's inconsistent and unintentially
> > variable in it's effects. He, naturally is going to be dissatisfied with
> > this, and will experiment to nail down these inconsistencies.
>
> Why would you assume that he would experiment? Perhaps he would in a
> "typical fantasy world" which assumes a scientific, modern mindset. I
> don't think it should.
>
> > Being that magic is chaotic and mysterious, he doesn't succeed.
> > However, your average fantasy world has civilizations that have
> > apparently lasted for many thousands of years. Do you mean to tell me
> > that nowhere in that time frame anybody was able to nail down
> > Stereotypical Mage's spell?
>
> Thousands of years?!
>
> Let's look at Earth. On Earth, we've had civilizations last for long
> periods of time, the Romans, the Chinese, yet none of them managed to
> invent atomic bombs or spaceships or even discover electricity. You are
> operating under and assuming a modern, scientific mindset that doesn't
> necessarily exist in a fantasy world.
Then again - You are mistaking something. We can speqak of the Roman
civilization, the ancient Greeks, the Chinese, etc, as if these
civilizations disappeared all of a sudden, but THEY DIDN'T ! The fact is,
that a lot of the "modern" discoveries that we have are rooted in
historical ideas and thoughts. For example, mathematics comes from
Pythagoras... When was he around again???
Modern society is the product of the past "civilizations" you mentioned.
Therefore , it did take "thousands of years" to invent the atomic bomb and
electricity...
But, like our "scientific" understanding of the laws of the universe, a
culture's understanding of the "magical" laws of the universe should be
incomplete, and ever-shifting, over time...
Just a thought.
G
--
I think I am, I think I am ....
- Descartes
Jens Hage
In rec.games.frp.advocacy russell wallace <rwal...@tcd.ie> wrote:
> In <5ik85h$1ec$1...@nntp-2.io.com> Jens Hage <jh...@io.com> writes:
> >> Okay, but in that system, why exactly would one create a new spell on
> >> the fly, if one were in a situation where a spell you've already used
> >> would do the job and speed and reliability are of the essence? (E.g. a
> >> barbarian is coming at you with a broadsword?)
> >The position you are in, the condition you are in (eg The spell doesn't
> >work when you are wounded due to mana leakage from wounds) the condition
> >of ht elocal mana flow, the phase of the moon, indigestion, etc, etc, etc.
> >All it means is that, due to the form magic takes, local condition are too
> >important to be able to gloss over with a UberSpell. You have to be there,
> >be awake and be cognizant of the local situation. In this form.
> Fair enough, and I agree one certainly can use a magic system like this;
> I just find it very hard to believe that any magic that was reliable
> enough for anyone to use at all, wouldn't lend itself to someone coming
> up with a spell that would always produce an effect regardless of those
> sort of minor variations. Tastes differ.
Well, in that case, were I involved with the campaign, I'd probably see
mages in support positions, not as front line sluggers (much like the AD&D
artillery type) where they -wouldn't- be in trouble constantly. YMMV.
Jens "lover of killer martial arts/mages" Hage
John S. Novak
On 13 Apr 1997 22:54:31 GMT, Mary K. Kuhner
<mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>Fireball doesn't have half the implications for the political system
>that mind reading, lie detection, and mind control would.
I dunno.
The areas of effect (heh) of these classes of reliable magic are so
different that it's hard to judge which would have the greater or
lesser effect.
Fireball and mass combat spells are obviously going to effect the
style of warfare in a land, if they are easy enough to perform. And
any change in the methods of warfare is going to bring about a big
change in the political landscape-- look at the effects wrought by the
simple introduction of the stirrup toward the end of the Roman Empire,
and the reintroduction of the pike and hedgehog a thousand odd years
later.
Mind reading, lie detection and the like are, by contrast,
sociological effects. That would change the nature of politics, I do
not dispute, but they lead to changes in other areas that are so
different, it's like comparing apples and oranges.
And another area that would be greatly affected by magic is economics,
particularly in the form of cheap transport-- or even something as
seemingly innocuous as more reliable transport. A magical compass or
an automatically reliable system of navigation would be a wonderful
thing. In one campaign, an entire era was defined as the time period
during which the Lighthouse of Ar'Siresh existed. This was a Wonder
of the World scale monument which allowed one nation to maintain
mastery of the sea for several hundred years, by allowing admirals,
and later individual captains, to know precisely where they were at
all times.
All of these are going to wreak massive change on politics.
I think it's shortsighted to claim one will wreak more or less havok
than any other.
woodelf
In article <slrn5kvoq...@mariner.cris.com>, J...@mariner.cris.com
(John S. Novak) wrote:
> However, I don't think this changes Russell's original point-- mages
> are going to have a pretty good idea of what they can and cant' do,
> just as the craftsmen, artisans, and engineers of antiquity and the
> middle ages.
well, i'd agree taht they will know what they can do, and what they can't
do, but they might not know what they might be able to do. i know i can
install a doorknob. i know that i can't build a circuitboard. i have know
real idea whether or not i can fix a car, because i've never tried or even
investigated what would be involved. if someone asked my to fix their car,
i couldn't give an accurately predictive answer, even if they told me what
was wrong with it. similarly, a (good) blacksmith theoretically could make
a plate gauntlet. but if she'd never thought to experiment with joints
other than simple pin hinges, she might not be sure of her ability in this
area. if she were to try, she might or might not succeed, and might end up
with a catastrophic failure (a gauntlet that fails from the shock of
holding a mace that has just hit another armored knight, frex).
woodelf
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
woo...@yar.cs.wisc.edu
http://dax.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf
It's like I've always said, you can get more with a kind word and a
2'x4' than a kind word. --Marcus Cole
woodelf
> The most certainly did use the scientific method. Perhaps not in
> ironclad, discrete steps, but as any learned man educates himself about
> the world. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Do you
> honestly believe that the greeks, or anyone with a modicum of
> intelligence and education, would not perform three basic tasks in
> acquiring new knowledge: experiment, observe, draw conclusions. They
> are the most fundamental steps of the process, you know. Everything
> else is organization, or presumed.
actually, we do have documentation that they did *not* follow those three
steps. i wish i could remember how they deviated. the best explanation
i've heard was as presented by James Burke on _Connections_. i'm afraid i
can't reproduce it here. however, i've sent bits of this thread onto
someone with some background in history of science, so i should have a good
answer soon.
> I understand that you want to believe magic should be an art, but if it
> is reproducable, and causes things to happen, it's a science. If it
> isn't reporoduceable, it cannot be tought, cannot be passed down except
> genetically perhaps. No one will every be a 'skilled wizard' because
> there is no way for him to determine his success. What is it you are
> trying to accomplish with all these gyrations, anyway? Perhaps it
> should be approached from another angle?
painting. i can scientifically analyze why mixing pigment A and pigment B
produces pigment C. and i can tell you which paints mix in what ways. and
we know why the pigments interact the way the do. we know how to use
different materials for brushes and with different strokes to produce
different effects. i can reproduce every element of a painting, with the
appropriate tools. and we certainly can teach painting. but i'd never
consider it a "science." it is at best partially reproducable (i can
duplicate a Dali, but it's unlikely that i can duplicate his style or the
impact of one of his paintings short of a complete duplication).
woodelf
In article <334F2B...@earthlink.net>, spam_fra...@earthlink.net wrote:
> The scientific method is fairly rudimentary, my friend. Tyr something,
> if it works, now you know. It is nothing more, at its most base level,
> than record keeping. I find it absolutely preposterous that you would
> believe intelligent people in any time would simply view the world as
> immutable. Explain, then, f this is their belief, why they practice
> sorcery at all, since, by definition, it is something to change the
> rules of the way things work. Explain alchemy, astrology, and any
> number of other "sciences" of the time. The fact that they were wrong
> did not necessarily mean that they did not have rudimentary logic at
> their disposal. Perhaps you are simply wishing it were so?
no, that is not the Scientific Method. that is rational thougth. the
Scientific Method includes "analysis" as one of the steps. if you don't
analyze your results, but merely record them, you learn far differently.
frex, i could (theoretically) paint a perfect reproduction of a Monet. and
i could do this through trial and error. and i could do it without ever
bothering to figure out why my initial attempts failed. when i finally
succeeded, i would not know exactly *why* i succeeded, and thus could not
reproduce the results--trying to reproduce a Manet would be a whole new
task. i remember someone once said that modern science introduced the
concept of "why?" in a rigorous and rational manner. prior to that,
rational analysts answered "what?" and "how" questions, and left "why?" to
philosophers.
oh, and alchemists, astrologers, etc., *weren't* trying to change the rules
of the way things work. that is not even vaguely valid as a definition of
sorcery. alchemists were trying to discover and operate under rules of the
universe that they saw as constant and immutable. are you trying to change
the laws of the universe when you take advantage of the fact that things
roll down hill and start your soapbox derby at the top of a hill?
> It seems pointless to discuss this further with you. You continue to
> assert the very point I question as valid. I do not accept your
> contention that there exists a so called "moder scientific mindset" that
> differs greatly from the mindset of the educated in the past. Perhaps
> there were fewer educated people, or certain knowledges were wrong or
> suppressed by the powers that be, but to suggest that the educated of
> the time were simply buffoons incapable of learning is rediculous.
see above: you can learn without being scientific. you can sometimes even
learn effectively. i could have learned to sing just by practicing until i
sounded like someone who sang well, and many people do just that. as it
is, i learned to sing from someone who knew how one sings, and why we do
the various things we do to sing, and so i know exactly what i'm doing an
dwhy, and can thus vary the technique in response to new situations. do
you think nobody wondered about the origins of maggots until the 18th
century (or was it 19th?)? they did, and concluded that they were
spontaneously generated from meat left out. no "experiment" step, no
"analysis" step. no concerns about causal relationships or
reproducibility. it truly never occurred to the ancients to worry about
any of these. so, in short, the Scientific Method can be trivially shown
to be a modern idea, by looking at the writings of so many great minds of
the past and seeing that the concept not only was never implemented, but
had never occurred to them.
Green must fight Purple. Purple must fight Green. Is only way.
--Green Drazi
Just my luck, I get stuck with a race that only speaks in macros.
--Ivanova
Psychohist
Mark Apolinski posts, in part:
Did a medieval peasant experiment to find out the best
grain for planting or how to optimize crop yields?
Actually, yes. That's why they switched from the two field system to the
three field system.
Warren
Thraka
Mark Apolinski wrote:
>
> So what you're saying is that the Scientific Method (TM) has *always*
> been in existance? Modern Science began with the caveman? I'm sorry, but
> I disagree. The Scientific Method (TM) is much more than "Try something;
> if it works, now you know."
I disagree vehemently. Trial and error is the _heart_ of science,
otherwise there would be no experiments. Recordkeeping is the key
addition of the "Scientific Method".
> Medieval sorcery was NOT, by definition, something to change the rules
> of the way things work. That is a modern romantic fantasy. Medieval
> sorcery was the attempt to understand how the NATURAL laws of the world
> caused things to happen. When such laws are understood, so the idea
> goes, then man can produce effects according to his desires and the
> world will become predictable.
This, sir, is the definition of science.
> The Scientific Method (TM) is a carefully designed method for arriving
> at Truth. It *didn't exist* in the Middle Ages. Take a few history
> courses on Magic and Science in the Middle Ages, and you'll see.
Take a few courses on science, sir! The scientic method is nothing more
than codification of six (or seven, depending on how you seperate them)
steps for reliable data analysis. Most people use these principles
daily. What are you talking about when you refer to the scientific
method? You are clearly discussing something other than what I know of
as the scientific method. Please explain your definition, as I have
previously asked. It seems obvious that we are talking about different
things.
> Explain *what* about alchemy, astrology, etc.? I never said that they
> didn't have rudimentary logic at their disposal. But you are confusing
> rudimentary logic, trial and error, and record keeping with the
> Scientific Method (TM).
There's no confusion. They are one and the same by all the science I
have ever learned. Again, you need to explain what you are talking
about. I am referring to the calssical definition of the scientic
method: Gather data, Form hypethesis, devise and perform experiments,
evaluate hypothesis. What are _you_ calling the "Scientific Method?"
--
Thraka
Clan Xenocide
http://home.earthlink.net/~thraka
To e-mail me, remove the 'spam_frag-' from in front of my address.
Thraka
Timothy Toner wrote:
>
> In article <334F2E...@earthlink.net>,
> Thraka <spam_fra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >The most certainly did use the scientific method. Perhaps not in
> >ironclad, discrete steps, but as any learned man educates himself about
> >the world. Do you even know what the scientific method is? Do you
> >honestly believe that the greeks, or anyone with a modicum of
> >intelligence and education, would not perform three basic tasks in
> >acquiring new knowledge: experiment, observe, draw conclusions. They
> >are the most fundamental steps of the process, you know. Everything
> >else is organization, or presumed.
>
> the key) CAUSALITY. If you do A to B within the scientific paradigm,
> you'll ALWAYS get C. If you don't, then A plus B cannot be proven to
> yield C. I'm comfortable in a world where C is generated part of the
> time, where we can't count on things working as clockwork as now. It
> makes things more dangerous, sure, but at the same time, it creates the
> possibility of a wizard class to sort it all out. Only they're not
> codifying as much as pushing an experiment and its subsequent conclusion
> in a given direction derived through intuition (and sloppy intuition at
> that). In the case of the ancients, they didn't sweat the details.
Causality is, IMO, a bait and switch here. The idea of synchronicy
implies a third, unknown causality (magic?) to explain a relationship
betrween two things seen as acausal. One can still have seemingly
acausal events by the simple presumtion that "something" is the cause of
the relationship, i.e. element D must be present to cause A and B to
make C, where D is unknown.
> FOr
> instance, there was the fellow who placed a sphere on an incline, and let
> it roll. His interpretation? THe ball will continue to roll, perpetually
> seeking its own level. Despite copious evidence to the contraty, this was
> a generally accepted principle.
Hmm, I'm unfamiliar with this. Could you describe it in more detail?
> >I understand that you want to believe magic should be an art, but if it
> >is reproducable, and causes things to happen, it's a science. If it
> >isn't reporoduceable, it cannot be tought, cannot be passed down except
> >genetically perhaps. No one will every be a 'skilled wizard' because
> >there is no way for him to determine his success. What is it you are
> >trying to accomplish with all these gyrations, anyway? Perhaps it
> >should be approached from another angle?
>
> Not so. JUst because an event doesn't have absolute reproducibility
> doesn't make it unteachable. IN fact, if we take a nod from quantum
> physics, that the conscous mind can somehow influence causality, then any
> exercise in mental discipline may move the results along in a rather
> "unscientific" direction.
Well, now, my understanding of quantum does not give me your spin, and I
suspect it is due to your lack of full info on quantum. I mean no
offense here; a friend pointed this out to me a month or so ago, and I
said, herm, I see! ;) In essense, the whole point of the perception
issue has to do with the mechanics of our perception, rather than
consciousness. In order to perceive the motion of things so small as
electrons, we must mess with them in some way and disturb them in the
process, observing the results. The uncertainty has to do with the
methods being used to observe the electron. For example, to detect
where an electron is, you have to have another particle, maybe an
electron, or something else (my physics is not advanced enough to give
precise details, so perhaps one of the phys guys can help here), hit it
and observe the results, and thus you disturb the electron and can't
make a call on it's speed. It is not our mental action that makes it
so, rather the methods we are forced to use to perceive such small
things.
But as for acausality not making something unteachable, I stand
corrected. However, to teach it, you _do_ have to put it in causal
terms, i.e. to make this thing happen, you must do this and this, etc.
Does this suit you better?
>
> --
> Timothy Toner --------- School Librarian ---------- than...@interaccess.com
> "There is a group--how haughtly their eyes! how overbearing their glance!
> There is a group whose incisors are swords, whose teeth are knives, devouring
> the needy from the earth, and the poor from among men." Proverbs 30:13